Under the Bridge

The School Paradox (Revised)

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:34:13 GMT

Schooling and education are so closely intertwined that they are usually considered synonymous. If one is educated, the common assumption goes, one has been schooled. When one finishes school, then one is educated. As obvious as this seems, however, it fails to account for many an ignoramus with a diploma or even an advanced degree. Certainly, in America practically all of us are schooled, but few would suggest that practically all Americans are educated. This is often due to what schools don�t do, but even more due to what they do.

Education is not necessarily schooling, and schooling frequently fosters a bad attitude toward education. Do youngsters jump out of bed each weekday morning with sunny smiles agape, eager to learn new words, historical facts, and mathematical formulae? A few may, and be targets of schoolyard derision for it, but for most any zeal relates to seeing friends, and others lack even that. School may be romantically recalled by adults but to many a child sitting aboard the big yellow prisoner transports, the coming school day is viewed as an eternity sitting still hearing �blah, blah, blah,� over and over and over while the sun shines and the birds sing and the world turns outside where things are actually able to happen. To them, education (like schooling), is repeating things their teachers say until they can repeat them without the teacher; it is writing the same letter again and again and again in cursive script until their hands cramp up; it is having to pore over things that hold no interest or relevance for them. It is, in short, hard work, not some magical adventure over the Reading Rainbow, and it doesn�t end when they go home.

As the student grows older and the work grows harder, it also becomes more abstract. What teenager ever understands why he�s learning the quadratic equation? What teenager ever understands why it�s important to understand the symbolism in The Scarlet Letter? What adult in his thirties hasn�t had that sudden epiphany, that connection that springs savagely to mind between what he�s doing and some bit of unapplied knowledge he picked up 15 years before? Shouldn�t that connection have been present in the first place? How does anyone learn to value education without seeing how it is actually going to be used?

An erudite existence may be scuttled by the idea that education is the sole province of youth. Graduation, for many, is the proclamation that you�ve learned all you need to know, despite the predictably unheard exhortations to the contrary in every faculty speech given. It is the goal, the achievement, the culmination of hundreds upon hundreds of mind-numbing afternoons, and if society regards them as off the hook, off the hook they will stay. College-level schooling is pushed most heavily before high school graduation, as if it were most appropriate to that age, prompting many to make a final choice far too early: sit at that desk for another 4 to 8 years, or go out and try to make something happen. Haven�t we all known someone who was �too old to go back to school� � at 25?

Schooling�s most harmful message, however � its greatest betrayal to education itself � is in teaching children to accept what they are told and not challenge their elders, their authorities. With this boot educators stamp out the ember of youthful curiosity that should, instead, be fanned to flame. This message says �Believe whatever we tell you. What we don�t tell you isn�t important.� It wet-nurses not just gullibility, but also the notion that being educated involves no more than listening to a favored �authority,� be it Karl Rove or James Carville, Rush Limbaugh or Randy Rhodes. How can one be educated without the ability � nay, the inclination � to doubt not only what one is told, but what one thinks he already knows?

I urge you, you adults these children have become - throw off your schooling�s mental shackles! Be curious. Doubt. Examine. Double-check. Reconsider. Turn off CSI and read a book � or at least watch National Geographic. If you decide to take a class, don�t worry about your classmates� ages; just think about how you will use the knowledge gained. Make education eternal, even though school is not, because once you stop learning, you�re dead � whether you�re schooled enough to know it or not.

American Asshole : October 2009

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:43:45 GMT

Yes, it's the return of an old favorite. After seeing certain people (listed below) in the news, I just couldn't resist. Who could?

For any newcomers, it works like this. I go through the news every month looking for people who behave like assholes. This isn't always a judgment of their overall worth - I've had people I like on American Asshole before - but a judgment of the particular behavior that seemed assholish in that particular month. After all, everyone is an asshole sometime.

Your part is to look at the evidence provided in the links and choose the one you think should be that month's special asshole. You vote by clicking on the "Billy Goats" link below and leaving your vote in the comments. Make sure your name is on the comment...... anonymous votes are not counted! Results are posted after the voting dies down, in a week or so.

You may nominate someone you see in the news, too. Just send a link to me in the comments here or on FB. I will consider and discuss all nominations, but retain the right of final say. As I have October assholes posted, all nominations should now be for November assholery.

Previous AA fans will see some changes in the nominations. For one thing, people who do horrid criminal things like abusing loads of adopted children have left assholiness far behind. Let the justice system deal with them. Likewise, politicians and pundits are paid to be assholes (as many of you have repeatedly pointed out) and one person's assholiness is another's "yeah!" moment, so it will be more difficult (but far from impossible) for these people to be nominated. When it comes to politicians, I'll look for behavior that all but the staunchest of partisans can agree is just plain assholy.

So what is nominatable assholiness? That is difficult to define, actually, as it involves intangibles galore. Highly unnecessary, self-centered acts by people who are oblivious to the effects on others, or simply don't care, stand out to me. So do people who don't mind causing others harm to gain a little convenience for themselves - or just out of spite. People who kick up a shitstorm when it would be easier to just keep their mouths shut are often considered. In the end, I may not be able to define assholiness, but I know it when I see it! Perhaps these individuals can help:

Richard Strandlof - It's sad that all you have is a big mouth and delusions of                                   adequacy.

Cherri Wolbruek - Support our troops, but not in HER backyard.

Keith Bardwell - Well, I guess we know what your opinion is. Do you remember what opinions are like? (1)

Mark DeCraepeo- Okay, then don't make the mozzarella caprese. Yeesh.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe- That "people who disagree with me are traitors" bit is so 2003.

Adam Manning - I'm sure you're going to be a wonderful influence on your son.

Larry Whitten - You may understand the hotel business, but you sure as hell don't        understand New Mexico tourism. Or, for that matter, New Mexico. (2)

Richard and Muyumi Heene - You know, some people become famous by developing    a talent or honing a skill. (1)

The Last Word on Bigotry

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:49:25 GMT

My prior post, On Bigotry, was actually the first half of an assignment for my Writing with Classical Tropes class. The assignment was to write anything we wanted, within a certain length, and I had wanted to write that essay for Under the Bridge anyway. The second half was to select one paragraph and analyze it for the tropes, or figures of speech, that are recognizable. The main tools for this exercise are A Handbook of Rhetorical Terms by Richard A. Lanham (whom Professor Shea refers to as "The Holy Richard" but I think of as "Biggus Dickus") and a website called Silva Rhetoricae, or The Forest of Rhetoric. The assignment was NOT to use any specific tropes or a minumum number; it was to write as we always do and then pick it apart afterwards. These exercises are called "lemon squeezers" by Shea (although I'm leaning toward the term "trope mope." I chose the fourth paragraph, which begins "And so they divide." The italicized tropes are defined in the text, and the above link should help if I failed to make any meanings unclear.

The writers among you may be interested in this process and, given this example, be motivated to pick apart a paragraph or two of your own? (Note: I wrote this on Word and pasted it - if you see any cyberwierdness in it on your browser - IE especially - that's most likely why.)

On On Bigotry

By Joe Serio

In my essay On Bigotry, I make the argument that bigotry is alive and well in America, and obviously so. Of course, there is the racial and class bigotry that permeates every corner of the world, but the essay focuses on the recent growth of political bigotry. This manifests itself just as racial bigotry does with political opinions � both real and imagined � as the basis, rather than race. The fourth paragraph comes after political bigotry is introduced and defined, and serves as a complex exemplum, or example, of how political bigots behave.

The first sentence is wildly busy. The first half is a clear brevitas, or brief statement; �And so they divide.� A series of three antitheses, or contrasts, follow the semicolon. Atop these antitheses lies a progressio, where I build my point around a series of comparisons; �Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, us or them.� The parallel structure, where each phrase contains the word �or� in the middle of a three-word antithesis, is isocolon. Furthermore, the second segment is also an auxesis, in that I started at specific political parties, opened up to more general political philosophies, and ended with the broadest and vaguest division possible; �us or them.� Finally, and hypothetically, each part of the second segment is, in itself, quite brief. Perhaps this entire sentence could be considered a compound brevitas? (Just joking there, UtB readers!)

I begin the second sentence with anastrophe, the unusual arrangement of words for a poetic effect; �As do racial bigots� rather than the more pedestrian �as racial bigots do.� At sentence�s end I begin a device that I use for the rest of the essay � emphasizing certain words with italics. Consultation with learned council has led me to see this as a written form of augendi causa, the raising of the voice for emphasis. This device permeates the next two sentences, which serve as exemplum to the second sentence. These sentences are formed from two antitheses: bigoted views of one side versus the other. The first part of each antithetical sentence rests on hyperbole; in this case, exaggerating the opposition�s faults. The second half of each rests upon euphemismus; ameliorating the home team�s faults. It is tempting to consider these sentences together to be another progressio, as they do offer another series of comparisons. Looking more closely, however, these sentences compare and contrast within parallel clauses � their this, our that - meaning I used syncrisis in both. Furthermore, I also used dialogismus in the wording, as I was speaking from another person�s character; either a conservative bigot or a liberal one, it matters not. Brevitas briefly returns with �They�re all liars.� Alliteration arrives with �misquoted and misunderstood.�

The next sentence tropelessly begins a repetition of the pattern set in the second sentence. It makes a straightforward claim for the next two-sentence exemplum. These latter sentences speak from the bigot�s point of view once again, in a more paraphrased dialogismus. Each sentence is a syllogism, or the political bigot�s one-premise form of the trope; �if� this, �you must� that. Of course, giving the contrasting views one sentence apiece formed another antithesis between them. The structure of the two sentences is parallel as well, with the aforementioned �if� followed by one belief and �you must� followed by two assumed beliefs. This structure, unlike that of the previous two-sentence exemplum, is close enough to be defined as isocolon.

Having clearly illustrated the division mentioned in the paragraph�s first clause, I wrap things up in classic fashion with erotesis, more commonly known as a rhetorical question � one that suggests its own answer. Here I suggest not a division, but a likeness � a union, if you will - between political bigotry and its more traditional cousin, racial bigotry. In this lay irony; for in their zeal to create differences, bigots are ultimately all the same.

Works Cited

Lanham, Richard. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1991.

Burton, Gideon O. Silva Rhetoricae. 2007. 27 September, 2009. http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Silva.htm

More on Bigotry (or, perhaps, Moron Bigotry?)

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:54:29 GMT

As I mentioned in my last post, there are those who would now have us believe that bigotry is something America has outgrown. After all, they will say, racial prejudice is no longer a mainstream, accepted attitude. Any hint of bigotry, they'll tell you, and the PC Police knock down your door. If that still doesn't convince you that our shores are now free of racism, they'll simply point you to our Nigerian President.

While ruminating on such, I found this news item. It seems that a Jewish fraternity has been planning a move to a new house near the University of Memphis, so someone decided to welcome them to the neighborhood by painting swastikas on the house's exterior. No one can claim that the fraternity's behavior had made them unwelcome, as they haven't even moved in yet. This was simply simple-minded hatred against Jews just because they're Jews.

Now, people can argue until Ragnarok about whether it was meant to be a serious threat, or merely a childish prank. As it happened on Fraternity Row, it's easy to see the prank angle. What kind of mind sees such a prank as funny, however? What personality will see this as worth actually putting time and effort into? The bigoted mind, of course-the small, insignificant mind that says to itself "Well, they're only Jews (or Blacks or Muslims or Asians or Democrats or trailer trash or mimes or whatever) so I, being inherently superior, can have some fun at their expense."

You know�� assholes.

Of course, this is just one out of millions of instances of bigotry that happen every day, in every state, every town, every block. It's a little flashier, wholly reprehensible, and invokes a war we actually won, so it gets the media attention. They can't possibly show every slur or threat against minorities, every lie about people of the other political party, every loogie in a cop's fast food sandwich. But then, they don't have to, because bigots will create their own displays, like the one in this news item's comments.

The first one comes from a person called "Susan" (hereafter, the sarcastic quotes around these peoples' names will be absent, but understood) who charmingly suggests that the Jewish fraternity did this themselves for the publicity. This is, of course, idiotic. Who needs this kind of publicity?

Still, nothing is so idiotic that someone won't reply to it (unless inured by experience) so Susan finds a sparring partner, Michelle. Her first volley is the old "I'm more educated" game � I'm a history major so I know about these things. Predictably, her opposition turned out to have two graduate degrees in something or other, which of course makes HER the most educated. The education bigot loses round one. Susan (with sarcastic quotes, remember) then decides that Michelle isn't a real Jew, while she has traced her lineage back to the "real Jews who stayed in Persia."

Other bigots begin chiming in. A political bigot blames the swastikas on "liberal socialists," obviously confusing them with National Socialists and more than likely not understanding either term.

Susan returns with a lot of news. First, she agrees with Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, she makes an anti-Christian comment, and then finally comes out of the closet as a Muslim, after which all her opponents simply say "Well, no wonder." Very na�ve of them, I'd say, because I don't believe Susan for a moment. After all, do militant pro-jihad Islamic fundamentalists normally begin their tirades with "I'm a history major, so I know!" or "You're not a REAL Jew, and I am?" No, they normally come out of the gate with a bunch of genocide-stolen land-White Devil- Glory of Allah type stuff. Susan is simply one of those people who like to start arguments on the Internet and will pretend to be anything or anyone toward that end. I forget what those people are called. Oh, yes � assholes.

It doesn't end there. One person who decides to actually make sense argues against the whole "Zionist agenda" argument by saying "An educated person would know that races of people aren't conspirators as a whole." But bigotry cancels out education, doesn't it, just acids and bases or matter and anti-matter.

Going further, Robt.in Ctown expresses hatred toward all immigrants, someone else chimes in with a statement against all religions, someone comfortable with the screen name Kikehymie suggests that the vandalism should have been a lynching of Jews instead, and then the crown jewel of it all, a comment titled "The November Criminals," which lays out the 12 point creed of the KKK, including hatred toward:

All non-white immigrants
All welfare recipients, regardless of race
All HIV+, regardless of race
All foreign investors
All free trade partners
Mexicans, naturally
All non-Christians

Consider, for a moment, that in 50 comments, this was what stood out the most; people taking the opportunity to share their own bigotries and petty, pointless hatreds. Again, we see that bigotry nullifies the effect of education, as an educated person would instantly know that the article itself does not invite such a reaction.

Oh, yes, I'm afraid that bigotry � racial, religious, class, education, and political � is very much alive and well in America, and I fear that the intellectual homogenization enabled by the Internet will only make it worse. When people can easily find support for what they want to believe and join online communities with "their kind" exclusively instead of taking part in a greater marketplace of ideas, the "us and them" mentality becomes easier and easier to adopt, even when it's aimed at people who are very like the bigots themselves. I'm afraid that we aren't finished with bigotry by a long shot.

On Bigotry

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:09:17 GMT

There is much talk of bigotry fueling President Obama's opposition, along with many denials. "How can there be bigotry in America when a black man has been elected President?" some ask, as if the election had been unanimous. Others deny bigotry by claiming that they oppose the President's policies, not the man himself, and the fraction of them who also decried Bush's skyrocketing deficit and government expansion may be in earnest about that.

It's clear, however, that bigotry plays a role in the President's opposition. The 400 % increase in death threats since Obama took office is hardly attributable to concern over health care reform. Arguing for racial bigotry's complete absence is impossible when facing propaganda that portrays Obama as an African witch doctor, pre-election statements about the "White House" having that name for a reason, and "Barack the Magic Negro." On a clear day I can't be convinced that the sky is any color but blue.

I can give the bigots this, however; not all the bigotry we see is racial bigotry. Another kind, political bigotry, has been growing. It's evident when we see people both right and left picking "sides" the way they choose a football team. They frequently don't consider what the labels are supposed to mean; after all, they have media-supplied stances to follow after they pick their side, whether these positions make sense or not. They never view debate as an opportunity to see another point of view, a different aspect to an issue that their experience does not provide � no, debate is to show how stupid they are and how smart we are. Political bigots see no validly differing philosophies; their side is wrong and bad, ours is correct and good, just as racial bigots view other cultures.

And so they divide: Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, us or them. As do racial bigots, they defend their own faithfully while finding whatever fault possible with them. Their intern-diddler reflects on their entire side's moral decay; ours is an aberration, shamefully exploited by a spiteful media. They're all liars; we're misquoted and misunderstood. The political bigot can sum up an opponent in a second by simply applying a stereotypical platform to anyone espousing one item on the list. If you're against the war, you must be anti-capitalism and anti-gun. If you're against abortion, you must also oppose church/state separation and health care reform. Is this any different than the bigot who assumes than any given one of those people is a criminal or welfare cheat or just loves watermelon?

Of course, political bigotry infects both sides. It is disingenuous, however, to pretend that both sides display equal symptoms; the greater gangrene is on the right. Obama's first seven months have seen more partisanship than Bush's entire first term, and people who pretend otherwise are lying to themselves. Those who claim that the unanimous opposition from Republican congressmen is a payback for what Bush received are particularly self-deceptive; they are ignoring, not forgetting, the ease with which two wars began and the PATRIOT Act passed.

Saddest of all, political bigots can't be friends with those they disagree with. The bigot's preference for filtering input � getting news from pundits because the media is biased toward them, for instance � eventually includes personal input. A polite disagreement is answered not with facts, but insults; a request for sources becomes an attack on the speaker's integrity. The bigot eschews the company of anyone who disagrees, becomes entrenched in reinforcement, even brags about moving cross-country to get away from them and be among us. Therein lay the grandest lie; for what could be less patriotic than freely and purposely choosing to despise your countrymen because of their �real or imagined- opinions?

Should 9-11 be a National Holiday?

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:02:29 GMT

I'm not sure about that.

For certain, I'm not prepared to OPPOSE such a thing, but to be honest, I'm not sure I see the point.

Does anyone really observe Pearl Harbor Day anymore? A few, but only a few, and fewer every year.

No one really bothers to Remember the Maine, though. Remembering the Alamo is done purely for reasons of tourism.

The morning of 9-11 was something that no one who was alive and cognizant that day will ever forget without help from Alzheimer's. It was, I guess, our generation's "moment." Just as our parents all know exactly where they were when Kennedy was shot, we can all recount our tales of how we found out about 9-11. In fact, I just did so this afternoon in an exercise for my Documentary Videomaking class. I was planning to make several callbacks to the Trade Center that morning. I'd been building a phone rapport in a few of the offices over the prior weeks. I've often hoped that those folks were on the lower floors.

The point is, I'll always have that connection to the date. I'll think of it every year. I won't make a show of it with an FB post or a t-shirt, as I'm not the demonstrative sort (not that there's anything wrong with that), but I'll think and feel about it without any prompting from anyone.

However, the next generation won't, because to them it will be as Pearl Harbor is to us: a piece of history. Not a shaking event that rattled the nation's sense of security to the core, as these two events were to their respective generations, but as a a date in history that they have no heartstring tied to. That is, unless we fail them as our parents' generation didn't fail us when they solved the problem themselves. Even in that event, however, the feeling won't quite be the same.

So the reality of it is that our generation doesn't need to be reminded of the day or how we feel about it, and if made official it will be mere calendar clutter by 2060 at the latest. Not that our legislators wouldn't LOVE the distraction of having to run this through the channels, mind you.

And why, knowing that we'll never forget it ourselves, do we want to make a holiday of it? That question could lead to some serious self-discovery, couldn't it? Careful, now.

Certainly, people are sincere in feeling that this day should never be forgotten, ever, but they must know that this isn't realistic. Again, people felt that way about the Alamo, and they were sincere, too. Life will always heal the wounds of such atrocities under bandages made from bigger, newer atrocities.

Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, we need to feel that after eight long years, something can actually be done decisively about it? Even if we can't get Osama, even if we can't eliminate Al Queda (whose name should really be HYDRA, they've got so damn many arms), we can at least do this? Perhaps it will make us as patriotic as the Pearly Harbor folks, despite the fact that they sacrificed their rubber, meat, sugar, and cookware to help the war effort where we took tax breaks instead and went shopping? Perhaps we just need to do something because we don't know what the hell to do but aren't ready to drop it, either?

So really, you want to give the folks in Washington the nod to pursue this aside from than the truckload of issues they're already falling behind on, I won't fight against it. I'll just be over in the corner, wondering.

Shuffleathon 2008

Mon, 25 May 2009 19:15:17 GMT

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.

The Disc Itself

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.

Thank you, Swiss Toni, for organizing this and being patient as only a European can. Hats off!

Lying with Dogs: How the Internet Spreads Untruth.

Sat, 16 May 2009 18:44:46 GMT

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

Diplomacy, Treason.

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:15:13 GMT

Photo ruthlessly stolen from maru.

Now is the Time and the Time is Now.

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:10:45 GMT

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

Discussion Time

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:08:45 GMT

Discuss while I begin two editing projects and several papers. Also, there's a poll on the sidebar to discuss. I can't do everything around here, after all.

The Terrible Burden of Proof

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:30:46 GMT

Note: The word "pathetic" is familiar to us all, but in rhetoric it describes an argument that is designed to have an emotional appeal or effect.

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

Sign of the Times

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:36:24 GMT

You Got Some 'Splainin' to Do.

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:07:07 GMT

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?

Just a Quick Announcement.......

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:31:32 GMT

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.

Organ Poll

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:54:43 GMT

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.

A series of attacks left 43-year-old Jeff Harriman brain dead. His family had hoped to donate his organs, but now that won't happen.

Family members met Tuesday morning with law enforcement officials in Pottawattamie County. Relatives now say organ donation could jeopardize key evidence. They left the meeting convinced an autopsy is needed to prosecute Harriman's attackers. A short time later, family members went to the hospital to take him off life support.

Relatives say organ donation would have ensured something positive would come out of Harriman's death. "I thought that would be great, but it's not as important as convicting these animals," said Harriman's mother, Ellie DeBell.

Of course, this gets me, once again, to pondering what is really most important.

To be certain, this is not to judge this family and say what they should do. They should do what they want to do. I think we can look at this a bit more abstractly, however, since this is not as unique a situation as any good person would like.

No one can deny that the woman's statement, " I thought that would be great, but it's not as important as convicting these animals," is true from a certain perspective. This is the perspective of a grieving mother, not the perspective of a person hooked to a dialysis machine, or that person's mother. Both are right. How can anyone look into either mother's eyes and tell her she's wrong?

Doing a little research, I found that, depending on which site you choose to heed, between 15 and 18 people die in America each day while waiting for a suitable organ for transplant.

Imagine that. You're in that bed, your doctor knows what to do to save you, has the skill to do just that, but for a lack of parts, you simply waste away and die. Imagine your child being one of the many people this happens to early in life. It makes that talk about the immorality of cloning look like the bullshit it is, doesn't it?

On the other hand, straightforward murder statistics are not easy to find. Most are rates per 100,000 people. I found only one site that provides straight numbers. (I will admit to limited research time. I really should be working on that Lizzie Borden paper right now.) If this site is reliable, it seems that in 2006 about 47 people were murdered in America every day.

So which folks are more important?

Certainly, a lot of innocent people are going down here. One could say that some of the folks on the transplant lists are there because of choices they made. They chose to drink too much or do lots of drugs, and are now suffereing for poor choices. That would be true. However, it isn't MOST of them, and the ones who aren't there because they used to be speedball addicts don't deserve to be judged along with those guys. Especially the children.

It's just as true that it isn't always the innocent to end up on a slab. Killers, thieves, molesters, rapists, and drug dealers prey on each other quite a bit as well. Many murder victims are simply the guys who didn't pull their guns out fast enough, or who trusted the wrong fellow criminal. It seems that the victim in this story didn't need to live where he did. He was there because he chose to be, and I personally feel that choosing to be homeless is a little askew. So if we can't decide which people are more important, as is usually our wont, how do we know what is more proper?

As I see it, it comes down to a choice between justice and mercy. Which is ultimately more important?

Obviously, most Americans are ready to champion Justice. We're a law and order people, despite our ironic crime statistics. We are the country that hold the greatest percentage of its own population in prison, after all. However, we never really seem to be safer.

In addition, we're about the wealthgiest folks in the world, but not the healthiest. In fact, there are very few people who feel that the American health system does not need an overhaul, and those are largely people who are making money on the system as it is now.

Could it be that we don't quite have our priorities as a nation straight here? Don't get me wrong, the people who beat this man should be caught and imprisoned. I wonder, though, could any of us choose to pursue that goal if we had to explain to someone else in that hospital that we made the decision to NOT save his or her life?

I, of course, can only speak for myself, but if I were the victim, I would want my organs passed on (and I AM a donor. Are you?) As much as I would resent being murdered (and having a sore and troubled world deprived of my light, my wit, and my unsurpassed humility), I do not consider my memory to be more important than the promise and hope of a young life I could be saving. There may be more innocents being murdered than dying from lack of organs, but the way I see it, we can help the living and suffering more than we can help the dead. At least, until we perfect the cloning of human organs, that's how I see it.

That's just me, though. How do you see it?

In Addition: Before posting this, I went looking for a suitable graphic. Obviously, I didn't find one. I did, however, find an article very germane to this topic, a thought- provoking, but short, essay on mercy vs. justice. Does this help you consider this, or just muddy the water?

Radio Free Underground

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:03:51 GMT

Here's some interesting things I've found recently.......

First off, one of the things that I love the most about this hobby is the ability to try new things without monetary risk. Sometimes I'm just drawn to something because it sounds weird, and so it was with the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain. With a bootleg title like Anarchy in the Ukulele, how can I possibly resist? What I got was a unique and fun blend of virtuosity and humor, as the songs themselves range from the sublime (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) to the ridiculous (Le Freak). Here's one from the midrange, their their rendition of Respect performed in Berlin on Nov. 15, 2007.

As many of you know from our movie discussions, I am resistant to sequels. That's why, when it comes to Hank Williams, I still prefer the original. I recently found a slew of Hank Williams radio performances from 1951 (Actually, half a slew. There are supposed to be 15 discs total, but for some reason only the first nine were uploaded. Still, that's enough to sate the need for quite awhile.) Like the Flatt and Scruggs radio shows, he was playing to advertise flour - Mother's Best Flour, that is. He'd do a few of his songs, a Mother's Best Flour ad spot, and like Johnny Cash on his radio show years later, he'd always throw in a gospel tune. Here's one I just couldn't resist sharing - On Top of Old Smoky.

Last week I offered up a little Grateful Dead with Santana. Here they are at the Euphoria Ballroom in San Rafael, Ca. on July 16, 1970, with none other than Pigpen's pal Janis Joplin. It's one hell of a jam on the tune Turn on Your Lovelight, and they're having so much fun jamming to it that they never actually seem to get around to doing the actual song. Oh well, it's still a hell of a lot of fun.

"Clinics" are small performances - usually, but not always solo - where a musician shares techniques, answers questions, and showcases his sponsor's wares. These can make for great stealth recordings because of their intimate nature and close setting. In 1981, when bass player Jeff Berlin was working for the Musician's Institute in Hollywood, Ca., he invited former Bruford bandmate and fusion guitar icon Allan Holdsworth to conduct such a clinic. They were joined by drummer Gary Husband and Holdsworth fan Eddie Van Halen. They really didn't play any songs, they just jammed, so here is a piece simply called Jam ??

Eddie also joined Allan at his Roxy performance, probably later that same night. The boots are said to sound awful, but the rumor is that EVH has a soundboard recording of that night. Don't be a bogart, Eddie!!!

Finally, here's a story straight from the liner notes of a boot called Queen- In the Beginning:

"Around September 1971, Brian May met up with an old Friend, Terry Yeadon, who was involved in the setting up of a new recording studio in Wembly called De Lane Lea.

The studios needed musicians to try out the new equipment they had installed -- and preferably a band who could play loud! The deal was that the musicians would record using the equipment, and potential studio users would be on hand to hear and watch them. In return for their services, the band could record their demos for free. It was an opportunity not to be missed and, of course, Queen jumped at it. Not only would they be able to make the all important demo tapes, but they would have ample occasion to meet producers and engineers, people who could be vital to their future."

So there you have it - the very first recordings made by Queen. Here's Keep Yourself Alive.

Grimm�s Cinderella: A World Transformed

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:12:11 GMT

Mankind has maintained a relationship with the arcane since first gaining the ability for abstract thought. To explain the things that confounded him, man developed religions, and as new religions developed, the old ones became mere "magic." In the western world, the greatest example of that was the long process in which Christianity replaced older, "pagan" beliefs. The fairy tale Cinderella, as told by the Brothers Grimm, can easily be seen as an allegory for this historic chain of events.

The allegory begins with the death of Cinderella's mother, and with it the passing of life as she had known it. On her deathbed, her mother admonishes her to be pious and pray, yet also tells her that she will be watching and helping her. This touches upon the pre-Christian belief that magical power and protection can be gained from one's ancestors. While strict Catholic doctrine holds that death ends all worldly connections, even when the deceased ascend to Heaven, many Christians to this day feel that their departed loved ones still hear them and look after them. With this in mind, it is pertinent to note that all of Cinderella's prayers are made by her mother's grave, as is all of her exclusively natural magic.

After her father remarries, a new way of life begins. The stepmother and sisters are outwardly beautiful, but inwardly quite selfish, and they live their lives without the help of pagan "natural" magic. They represent the coming of Christianity to supplant the old beliefs. While Cinderella has been taught the new religion and does pray to God, she actively refuses to completely renounce the old ways. When her father brings gifts, the stepsisters ask for fineries. Cinderella, instead, requests a branch that she grows into a tree at her mother's gravesite � a pagan symbol of life beside a scene of death. Her new family, for their part, does not ignore her. Instead, she is practically enslaved, placed on a lower social tier and denied her rights. Early Christians did much the same to those who hesitated to join them. Many pagans were converted by torture or murdered outright. If early Christians could not covert the pagans, they would subjugate them or destroy them. They were never treated as equals. Those that did convert would then sever past associations in order to fit into their new society, just as Cinderella's father neglects her after remarrying.

It is important to note that in this tale of transition, the number three can be seen several times. The family has three girls. Cinderella makes three daily trips to the tree for prayer. There are three nights of dancing and festivities, followed by three attempts by the Prince to find his bride. The number three has been of utmost importance in many pagan religions. The druids, for instance, would knock upon a tree three times to awaken the spirits. By the same token, however, the number is also central to Christianity, which worships the Trinity, one God with three aspects. It can hardly be a coincidence that a number so important to both the old ways and the new ways would appear so frequently in so short a tale. Especially important to the transition theme are Cinderella's three daily trips to the grave, in which she kneels by a pagan symbol of life to pray to the Christian Trinity.

The behavior of the sisters when trying on the slipper illustrated the behavior of many Christians and converts of the day. In attempts to curry favor, or perhaps merely to stay alive, they would demonstrate their Christianity by showing contempt for older beliefs, rather than through any actual piety. Certainly, the sisters didn't behave kindly toward Cinderella, the pagan, and were never said in the story to pray at all. Rather than be honest about the slipper being too small for them, they chose to make cosmetic changes like lopping off a toe or a heel in order to curry favor by appearing to be something they weren't. Certainly many pagans, as well as Popes, had to deal with those who didn't truly believe in Christ but were quick to seek favor by harshly condemning those who failed to convert.

In the end, however, it is the girl with one tiny, delicate foot in each world that curries the favor and marries the Prince. With the help of both natural magic and, presumably, God (who is mentioned several times but never takes an overtly active role in the story), Cinderella marries the Prince and goes on to a better life. She still does not change her ways completely, however, as her magical birds follow along and make sure her family troubles are over. The story ends without the slightest indication that the birds then leave or that she stops visiting her mother's grave or working natural magic. Yet, she is leaving that home and moving to a much more secure and loving environment.

Is this not also how it was with Christianity? It is well known that the dates on which Christmas, the birth of Christ, and Easter, His resurrection, are observed were chosen to coincide with common pagan holy days. Following scripture, it is more likely that Christ was born in the spring or summer, but the observance was placed in the winter because of the fairly ubiquitous winter solstice celebrations. Christians ultimately found it easier to replace one celebration of birth with another than to beat the love of God into the celebrants. The same holds for Easter and what we now call Halloween. Christmas trees and Easter baskets both have pagan origins, as do church bells. As Cinderella's and the Prince's problems were solved by a wedding between them, so did a marriage of sorts end the violent strife between the Christians and the pagans.

Whether or not the Brothers Grimm intended their version of Cinderella to allegorically tell the story of Christianity's rise, the tale certainly steps up to the task. Every character serves the allegory. Mother represents the old ways, the stepmother and sisters are the new ways, Father is a willing convert, Cinderella a hesitant convert, and the Prince is the religious establishment that all the others want smiling upon them. As many nursery rhymes and fairy tales throughout history contain a germ of history within them, so it is that the Grimm version of Cinderella can be seen to tell the story of a way of life's demise.

Works Cited

Brothers Grimm, The. "Cinderella." Retellings. Ed. M.B. Clarke and A.G. Clarke. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 5-10.

Radio Free Underground

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:25:15 GMT

As I said before, Trolling the Underground is on hiatus for lack of time. I'll be doing a lot of writing today and tomorrow, believe me, but nothing for Blogovia unless you'd like to read my literary analysis of Cinderella (Two versions!) or my paper on ethical technical writing. I don't even want to know about that second one.

But I'm still downloading music and listening to a lot of new bootlegs, so I'll share a sampling with you throughout the month. Here's the stuff I've been listening to on campus this past week!

The first cut has a story to it. On 08-06-2003, I went with my friends to the Journal Pavilion just south of Albuquerque to see Galactic, Jeff Beck, and B.B. King. I had scored us some sweet second row center seats for this one, and as Beck was starting I noticed that the guy to my left was recording it! Cool! It turned out sad, though, because the guy hadn't checked his batteries before starting, and they died during the fourth song. Fie! I still wanted the recording, though, so we exchanged e-mails. He offered me a copy, and I suggested we get together so I could buy him a beer for his troubles. I never heard from him again. I figured maybe he thought I was hitting on him or something.

Then, last weekend, I see it posted on my fave site. I made a comment about the guy I met, and it was indeed him posting it. He said his hard drive had crashed, so maybe we'll have that beer someday after all. In the meantime, here's the first song that Jeff played that night, called Psycho Sam. You can hear me and my former friend to my left discussing the presence of drummer Terry Bozzio (whose name I mispronounce) on stage, a happy thing that we hadn't known would happen. You can tell that I'd had a few and didn't yet know that my neighbor was recording.

I got into Doc Watson through listening to a radio show where he performed with blues great Taj Mahal. His blend of blues and bluegrass adds up to true Americana.
I was surprised to hear this song, called Deep River Blues, because I learned it from Jorma Kaukonen under the title Big River Blues. Same cool old country blues, though. Here's Doc and Merle Watson doing Deep River Blues on September 14, 1982.

Moving right along, here's the Jimi Hendrix Experience on 2-24-69 at some London nightclub dive called the Royal Albert Hall. I guess you have to play a few places like that before you get to the Fillmore. The song is I Don't Live Today.

I first saw my favorite live performer, Peter Gabriel, in 1983. I've been looking for a copy of that show, or any great sounding 1983 show, ever since. I still don't have the show I saw, but I finally found a great sounding recording from the show in Werchter( which I think is Bavarian) on 7-03-83. First, Peter gets a little advice from an audience member, then launches into one of his most popular songs, Solsbury Hill.

I've long known of Jan Hammer's incredible keyboard skills from his time with the Mahavishnu Orchestra and his magnificent work with Jeff Beck. I've long since forgiven him for his 80s transgressions such as the Miami Vice theme. Since this bootleg was recorded between Mahavishnu and Beck, I figured I'd give it a try, and I'm glad I did! This song, called Plants and Trees and recorded at Ratso's in Chicago on 11-26-75 is some PRIME jazz fusion.

Finally, here's All Along the Watchtower as brought to you by the Grateful Dead and guest Carlos Santana on 8-23-87. Both Jerry and Carlos jam here and anyone who can't hear the difference has to stay after class!

Hope you enjoy! Seeya around.

Yawn

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:14:13 GMT

When you say "Hellen Keller" but you're thinking "Lizzie Borden," it's time to get some fucking sleep!