Last week I wrote an article counter the common arguments against gay marriage (in a very tongue-in-cheek manner, I will admit), and ended with a call to arms over the issue of gay marriage, as it pertained to Question 1 on the upcoming Maine election. Needless to say, I’m sure by now most have heard that this referendum passed, and that same-sex marriage is now illegal again in the State of Maine. I for one, am disappointed and disgusted, but this loss raises a valid point which few seem to be willing to address on the national or state level. President Obama addressed it a little bit on the campaign trail, and this sentiment can often be heard in almost all political discussions between friends. How often do you hear people say something similar to “Ugh, how can they be so stupid? I don’t even understand where they’re coming from!”
Now, clearly the “the other side is so dumb” sentiment is dismissive, and unnecessary, but the second portion of this is what I wish to write about. This concept of “I don’t even understand how the other side could reach this conclusion” raises an important point. Part of the premise of our political system is that within a democratic system, the thought processes of the majority will be put into law, but that everyone’s voice will be heard and, at least ideally, considered. However, this seems to be quite the opposite of what is happening. The current political atmosphere seems much more centered around visceral emotional responses to an issue, and I think this is at best unfair and unreasonable.
The United States of America is, to steal a common phrase, a melting pot. That is to say, people from all sorts of ethnic, religious, economic and political backgrounds live in the United States. Allegedly, all of these people have an equal voice in the way political decisions are made. To paraphrase President Obama, the only way to make sure the law is just and fair to everyone is to be able to carry-on a rational, reasoned discussion about the topic. He was talking about this in the context of his personal religion, and how this would affect his decisions as president, but I feel that there’s a larger point to be taken away from this.
Consider the vote on Tuesday in Maine. It is fairly obvious to anyone who watched the campaigns unfold and the discourse leading up to the vote, fear of change seemed to win the day. Now, this is a rather superficial definition of the reason that the Yes on 1 campaign won, and there’s an argument to be made that the vote was religiously motivated, that fear about the societal affect of same-sex marriage, that it was fundamentally wrong for children to be taught that homosexual couples exist, that the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed, or even that homosexuality is too gross, a disease, or even a biblical abomination were the underlying reasons for why the Yes on 1 campaign won. All of these arguments may have some merit, but the consensus of analysts seems to be that superficially, voter turnout on the No on 1 side just wasn’t there, and this was probably because “protection of marriage rights” is much less of an emotional issue than “protecting the institution that has been in place for thousands of years”.
Note the word emotional in the last sentence. This is the crux of the issue. Politics within the United States has turned into a visceral emotional issue. President Obama arguably won on this very campaign, he inspired people by using very emotional mantras, “hope” and “change”.
This is directly the reason religion seems to have such a stronghold on the United States political atmosphere, religion is, for the majority of religious people, a very, very emotional issue. However, emotion is something that is very difficult to convey to others. Have you ever felt something, tried to explain it and given up because they “just wouldn’t understand”? Or consider a political topic that is very emotionally charged, like abortion. Much of the discourse over abortion centers around the “abortion is murder” argument. Now, whether you’re for or against abortion, I think you would have to look long and hard to find someone who has no opinion about abortion. Even those that one may encounter that say “I don’t know much about the issue” usually finish with “but I feel X way about it”. Again, not the use of the word “feel”.
As President Obama said (albeit not directly about political discourse in the United States), the only way to ensure that everyone feels like they are being represented is to make the discourse founded in intellectual, reasoned discussion. One is allowed to feel however one wants on a subject, but the argument presented ought to be as devoid of emotion as possible, or it’s hard to find a common ground.
To use the gay marriage referendum in Maine again, much of the discourse from the Yes on 1 campaign was very emotionally charged. The No on 1 campaign was accused of “redefining marriage” (arguably a fairly personal attack on those married couples in the State of Maine). While the No on 1 campaign presented a very well thought out, intellectual argument about how same-sex marriage wasn’t different from straight marriage, how these are just people that deserve equal rights, how the other states that have legalized gay marriage aren’t suffering from any societal degeneration, and even how same-sex marriage does not affect the economy (and in some cases boosts the economy) of the states that have legalized it. Obviously, these arguments failed against what seemed to be a very simple, consistent, emotional message.
It’s clear that many political issues are emotionally charged (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, insert-your-topic-of-choice-here), but choosing to react to emotions first, and try and justify your emotions second is the wrong way to go about having a debate that will sufficiently satisfy every party. Often times emotional issues cause people to zealously stake out a position, and subsequently not budge.
In order to move this country forward we, as a whole, must start forcing political discourse to be entirely grounded in an intellectually supported way. Once this expectation has been laid down, the “abortion is murder” argument will need to be supported by a working definition of murder, why abortion falls under this category, why a fetuses life is more important than that of the mother, and a plethora of other questions. The same-sex marriage debate will no longer be able to use “fundamental redefinition of marriage” as a mantra without providing a definition of marriage, and evidence to support that this definition really has never changed throughout the course of history. The healthcare reform debate will have to actually support that “death panels” will occur, providing proper citation directly from the bill.
Fearmongering, hatred, and prejudice will no longer be valid political arguments, and will instead be marginalized in preference of reasoned political debate. Emotion is clearly an important part of being human, and we need not remove it from who we are. However, emotion ought to take a secondary role in the national and state level political discussion.
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
emotion as a rational argument? No thanks
Monday, November 9th, 2009the time is now
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009Gay marriage is an issue pushing it’s way towards the forefront of the political playing field, and an issue that really shouldn’t be ignored. There are now six states that currently allow same-sex couples to be married, and a 7th that did at one point. However, this number is at risk of slipping on November 3rd.
On November 3rd, the state of Maine has a People’s Veto up for vote. This vote acts very much in the way that Proposition 8 did in California, a “yes” vote means “repeal the legalization of same-sex marriage” and a “no” vote means “do not repeal the legalization, keep it legal”. I’ve ranted and raved enough about this particular vote, but as someone who spend a large portion of his life in Maine, I have a connection there that native Minnesotans may not.
I don’t want to rant more about this specific vote, but I do want to discuss same-sex marriage as a concept. The opposing viewpoint, that marriage is between a man and a woman, puts forward a number of different arguments for why same-sex marriage should remain illegal, but it seems as though none of these hold much water, and this is what I want to talk about today.
Same-sex coupling/marriage is unnatural, animals in nature don’t do it. This decidedly not true. There are species of apes (Bonobos, to be more precise) that exhibit very homsexual behavior, entirely within their natural habitat.
The word “marriage” is strictly a religious word, and the government shouldn’t be deciding what my religious beliefs can be. Clearly it’s true that the government shouldn’t be imposing religious viewpoints on the general public. I wouldn’t like it anymore than someone who believed the opposite of what I do. Separation of church and state is an important part of the principles this country is founded on. However, the idea that the word “marriage” is only a religious word also is just patently false. The word marriage derives originally from the latin word maritus, which means lover or nuptial. The verb form of this word, maritare, means “to marry” or “to give in marriage”. The english language came by this word through french, but the origins are latin. While it’s possible that all of these were religious ideas (the Roman Catholic church possibly had a very large influence on latin), it’s important to note that none of these root words specify gender, or a religious context. Furthermore, the term “marriage” is used all the time in a secular context. If the religious people of this country want to claim “marriage” as a religious word, wonderful. However, all civil marriages need to be called “civil unions” and it seems as though religious organizations should hold separate ceremonies for their marriages.
Being gay is a choice, and we as a society shouldn’t have to cater to every single person’s lifestyle. Tell me, if you’re putting forward this argument, when did you choose to be straight? At what point in your life did you decide that you preferred the opposite gender to your own? What’s that? You didn’t? That’s right, you didn’t. Just as you don’t choose to be inherently introverted, or you don’t choose to like some foods. Clearly people can choose to act on their tendencies, or to not act on their tendencies. I regularly choose not to eat vast amounts of candy, despite the fact that I love candy. I also choose to be more out-going in a social setting, despite the fact that I’m a relatively introverted person. People can choose to act a certain way, either with or against the way they are naturally, but this doesn’t make homosexuality a choice or a whim.
The bible says homosexuality is an abomination. The bible also says that you’re not supposed to eat shell-fish, or wear clothing that mixes fibers, or eat fruit from a tree that is older than three years of age. These parts of the bible are ignored all the time, because they’re not relevant to our society anymore. If we’re allowed to ignore parts of what the bible says, doesn’t this sort of remove the authority that the bible has on what we can and can’t do?
If same-sex marriage is legalized, my children will be taught that it’s ok for men to marry men, or women to marry women in school. My children might become gay! I know I turned into a zebra when I first learned about them. In fact, I’m still a zebra. No, your children won’t turn gay because they’re being taught that it’s OK. Homosexuality isn’t something one becomes if exposed to it, one cannot catch homosexuality like one does with the flu. Furthermore, you children may already be gay or lesbian, they may already know that they prefer people of their own gender to people of the other gender. This is OK!
These seem to be some of the primary arguments opposing same-sex marriage laws. As one can see, there are responses to all of them (I know, I know, everything has a resopnse to it), but I hope my responses have caused people to think about the position they are putting forward.
Same-sex marriage is a matter of equality, and it’s a matter of love. No one is harmed when straight people get married, marriage between people of the same gender isn’t different. The sanctity of marriage won’t be affected by same-sex couples marrying, particularly given that the sanctity of marriage is already arguably under attack (consider the rate of divorce in the United States).
I know I promised I wouldn’t rant about Question 1 on the Maine ballot, but this feels important. If you’re from Maine, go vote No on Question 1. If you’re from Maine, but not there currently, request an absentee ballot. If you’re not from Maine, but you know someone who is, go urge them to vote, urge them to make their voice heard for equality and justice. If you’re not from Maine, and don’t know anyone there, but this issue is important to you, donate money to the No on Question 1 campaign. There are 6 days left before this is put to a vote, I’m sure the No on Question 1 campaign could use monetary support in the last sprint before voting day. UPDATE: Colin (@weikaolun ) on Twitter, directed me towards a way to help the No On 1 effort in Maine, even if you’re not in the state. Check it out
This issue isn’t about religion, it’s not about removing rights from other US citizens, it’s not about turning the children of this country into homosexuals, and it’s not an attack on the American Way of Life. It’s about people who love other people wanting to be able to commit themselves to the other person for life. It’s about people yearning to be able to have a way to show their love to the world in the same way that other people in this country can.
Those of you in Minnesota reading this? Let’s do what we can to get Minnesota up to speed with states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and hopefully Maine.
tl;dr Gay marriage isn’t bad, and the reasons people give for why it is are wrong. Do what you can to keep same-sex marriage legal in Maine.
I don’t care about your religion, or your phobia, I care about equality for all
Wednesday, May 6th, 2009There is a bill going through the Maine legislature right now that will allow homosexual couples in Maine to be allowed to marry, and be given full marriage benefits. The bill passed through the Senate with a vote of 21-14, and then moved to the House. The Maine state House then voted to pass the bill, with an amendment, with a vote of 89-57. Because an amendment was added, the bill must go back to the Senate, and if passed there, then to Governor Baldacci’s desk.
Up until recently, Governor Baldacci was an opponent of gay marriage. However, after a hearing, both proponents and opponents of the bill left messages with Governor Baldacci’s office. Governor Baldacci the apparently took all of these notes, and called each one back, individually. According to one blogger who received such a call, the conclusion that seemed to be reached, without Governor Baldacci actually explicitly saying this, was that if the bill were to reach his desk, it would be signed into law. Today, the bill went back to the Maine state Senate, was put to a vote and passed with 21-13, with one person not present. Governor Baldacci has signed the bill into law, making Maine the fifth state to allow gay marriage!
There are a number of different arguments against gay marriage, ranging from: “The bible says it’s a sin, so it is therefore wrong” to “There’s no reason for homosexuality to be natural, as it doesn’t produce offspring” to “It’s just weird” to “Allowing gay marriage to occur will send the wrong message to our children about what marriage and love means”. I don’t want to refute all of these arguments, it’s been done before, and that’s not what I want to say.
Gay marriage is, at it’s core, a matter of equality. Equal rights, equal protection by the state, and even equal ability to profess one’s love to another in a socially accepted way. There are gay and lesbian couples all over this country who have professed their love to one another, and who have made the commitment to each other in a “non-official” way (I say non-official here to mean not state-recognized, not to diminish the reality of their commitment). With respect to each other, these couples are “married”, they just can’t become recognized, or get the same tax, visitation, and adoption benefits as straight couples.
I’m sure similar things were said about the women’s suffrage movement: “The bible says it’s the job of the man to care for his wife, why would a woman need to vote?” or “It’s weird seeing women trying to go against the societal norm”. In case you hadn’t noticed, women are now allowed to vote (it’s still true that women don’t make as much as men in equivalent jobs, and there are some other things that need to happen for “true” equality with respect to women’s rights).
We’re all humans on this planet, and everyone has an equally valuable life. People all do equally valuable things, and all have equally valuable opinions. Furthermore, everyone is deserving of equal rights, be it property rights, marriage rights, ability to work, ability to adopt children, or even ability to say what one wants to say. We don’t censor people’s speech because “it’s weird”, and shellfish are sold for food almost everywhere, despite the bible explicitly forbidding it.
Everyone deserves an equal shot at their unalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. Everyone deserves an equal ability to purchase a home. Everyone deserves an equal ability to be with, commit to, and marry whoever it is they choose. I commend Maine on their very progressive stance on the issue, and I urge Minnesota to follow the lead of Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Equality isn’t about religion, isn’t about tradition, and isn’t about making people comfortable with everything that is happening around them. Equality is about making things fair, just, and, as redundant as this sounds, equal. As a nation we need to look towards a day when everyone, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, men, women, homosexuals, transgendered people, anarchists, socialists, and name-your group-that-I’ve-left-out-here get treated as human beings and with the same level of respect, dignity, and political status as every other group.
NOTE: I had written this post without the knowledge that Maine had passed the bill. I then saw that the bill had been signed into law, and modified the post. If there are inconsistencies, please let me know! Go Maine!
the role of the media
Wednesday, April 29th, 2009I find myself on a constant quest for new information, be it news, theories, whatever. Ultimately, I don’t really care what it is, but I want to know what’s happening, and I want to know it as soon as possible. Generally speaking, people get their information from the media. Whether it’s newspapers, watching news on tv, reading current events blogs, or listening to informational radio, people get their information from somewhere.
Because of this, the information people are fed has an inherent bias to it. It’s impossible for a writer to be completely objective, regardless of how hard they try. In order to be truly objective, the human element needs to be removed from something, because as humans, we process everything we’re told. So even in regurgitating news, we’re unintentionally passing on our own interpretation of what we were just told. It is arguably possible for people to move past the small bias that stems from an attempt to be objective (vs. a very large bias when no attempt to be objective is made), but it’s important to remember that there will always be bias.
However, there seems to be something else at play in the mainstream media. Yes, clearly there is bias, this has been established. However, it seems that certain types of media, particularly mainstream media, have other prioritites. Most mainstream news organizations are multi-national corporations. Take MSNBC for instance. It used to just be NBC. National Broacasting Corporation. Then deal was made with Microsoft, and the two corporations became partners, and MSNBC was born. Does this matter in the long run? Perhaps not, it’s conceivable that Microsoft just wanted name recognition and a news service for their search engine. However, it’s also conceivable (but perhaps unlikely) that Microsoft has a vested interest in the news that gets put out by MSNBC. I’m not insinuating that Microsoft is censoring news stories, or even that they’re actively putting “spin” on the news being reported. Would a writer for MSNBC tend towards writing favorably when discussing NBC or Microsoft, if only because these two partnered companies pay the writer?
Granted, this is all conjecture, and it sounds a bit “conspiracy-theorist”, but take it as an exercise for the reader. It seems that news sources aligning themselves with other organizations, even if it’s only monetarily, puts another level of inherent bias in the news, as presented to the consumer. Furthermore, these mainstream media companies are just that, companies. The bottom line of a company is to turn a profit. For media companies, this means maintaining subscribers, funding yourself with advertisements, etc. On a national level, in order to maintain subscribers/users, there is obviously a balance between what is actually happening, and what your readers care about. If readers stop caring about what a company is printing, the readers stop reading.
The independence of any news source is crucial to the ability of a news source to be objective. As stated, once a news source aligns itself with an organization or viewpoint, whether it’s monetarily, acting as a soap box for the organization or viewpoint, or even taking what the organization or viewpoint professes at face value, and re-reporting this, the objectivity is lessened. The mandate of any news source is to present the news to the public, in a “fair and balanced” (please ignore the Fox News connotation, as they are anything but) manner. A news source cannot, and should not claim to maintain a level of objectivity while aligned with any organization. Should an organization want to put their own subjective spin on what is happening within the organization, said organization perfectly capable or putting out their own news.
Furthermore, there’s an argument to be made that in the pursuit of objectivity, a news source should be playing devils advocate and asking the dissenting questions. It is arguably the job of a news source to question everything in public discourse, and act as a watchdog over things like government, corporations and businesses, police, politicians, and ultimately even the people themselves. This is the mandate of a news source, and nothing that I’ve seen has ever met this goal.
Consider for a moment the recent presidential election. The mainstream media, generally, was very pro-obama. I acknowledge, so was I. However, it seemed that the majority of what was being said about Obama, was what Obama’s campaign wanted said. No, I’m not insinuating that Obama’s campaign told the mainstream media exactly what to print. However, it does seem that the media took a majority of what was said at face value. I consider myself very left-leaning, but one has to wonder where the concept of “liberal media bias” stems from. Arguably, the mainstream media was fairly biased in favor of Obama (presumably because the previous 8 years left everyone jaded). This isn’t objectivity. This level of bias is a disservice to the public, to the Obama administration, and ultimately, to the news companies themselves.
they say we must support the troops, but why do they get to decide?
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009Recently, there was an email sent to our student listserv urging students to get out and “support the troops”, because a local group of soldiers was getting deployed. The email went on to say that it was important to support the troops, regardless of political affiliation. This seems to have been a fairly common theme over the past 6 years or so, with the “support the troops” mantra being chanted nationwide. This idea of “support the troops also seems to have and an implied sub-mantra “dissent and disagreement don’t have room in this conversation, our troops need support, and by voicing your anti-war opinion, you’re not being supportive, and are therefore a bad person”. Maybe that’s just me, and maybe I’m reading into it too much, but this is the sense I get from the majority of the “support the troops” pushes that I’ve seen.
It’s curious to me that “support” has seemingly turned into “implicitly agree with” in the context of the troops and the military in this country. I say turned into, but I don’t actually know, it’s possible this has always been the sentiment, and I’m just noticing it now. Superficially, I think people are saying “show the troops getting ready to be deployed into very tough situations that you’re here for them”, which, on a superficial level I don’t disagree with.
However, because of the connotations expressed above, it seems that “support” has taken on a different meaning. In attending a rally for troops getting ready to be deployed, and waving a flag, and clapping for them as they leave, it seems as though there are other messages being sent. If I were to go to one of these rallies, and wave a flag, and clap for the troops as they leave, I would feel as though I were implicitly agreeing with their decision to go into the military, the tactics they’re going to be instructed to use while deployed, and ultimately the concept of war and destruction as a whole.
The issue is, I don’t. I admit to being a little bit extreme in my views on war and pacifism, but I stand by them. I don’t agree with people’s decision of going into the military. First, because I think the military uses unfair recruitment techniques, and I feel as though many new recruits get caught up in the grandeur of serving one’s country, the education bonuses, and the “cool” jobs they’ll get to do if they score high enough. I also disagree with the tactics the military instructs their soldiers to use, although this is probably rooted in my idea’s of non-violence. Water boarding isn’t ok, nor is other forms of torture. Keeping people held indefinitely, in a state of legal limbo, and without any hope of them ever getting released in Guantanamo isn’t ok (yes, I know this is supposed to be over, I know those people are being released, etc. That still doesn’t remove the wrong that was initially done). Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that war is the best way to solve certain problems. Invading a sovereign country, destroying people’s homes, completely destroying and rebuilding a countries government, and staying in a country for almost 6 years is not ok. We’re not building an empire, we don’t have a mandate from anyone to bring democracy to the world, and ultimately, we were wrong.
So, if I disagree with what seems to be implied in “support the troops”, why would I do so? I acknowledge that these soldiers are going into a scenario that will be very taxing on them. The things soldiers will do and see is enough to scar anyone for a lifetime. War isn’t pretty, and it’s not glorious. Ultimately, at least for me, the question boils down to the meaning of support in this context.
There’s an argument to be made that returning soldiers deserve our support as a country. Veteran’s benefits are not what they used to be, and many veterans are not being supported in near the number of ways they need support. There’s not a very good mental health system for these soldiers, and overall, the benefits are lacking. I’m all for building up veterans benefits, soliders go through way more than the average civilian, and should be helped back into the society that had them do these things. That said, there are a lot of people in this country right now that are seeing things that are also very emotionally taxing. What about the homeless people (in some cases also veterans) who don’t have a place to live, don’t have clean clothes, don’t have money or a job, and have no idea where their next meal is coming from? Don’t they deserve support also? What about the people working in shelters, soup kitchens, food shelfs, and other organizations that see homeless people come through every day, and know the situations of each one of them? The workers have food, have a job, have a house, but are tasked with seeing large numbers of people who don’t. That’s got to be emotionally taxing. What about those who’re wrongly imprisoned, for any number of reasons, and are subjected to knowing that they’re innocent, but stuck within a system that is designed to keep them their, against their will. A system that is designed to not believe them. What about those people who need support of a mental health system that doesn’t have the funding it needs? Isn’t being subjected to a “let’s try this drug and see what happens” mentality incredibly taxing?
I’m not saying that any of these situations deserve more money or time than the situations of troops returning home. Nor am I saying that any of the people in these situations are have it worse than the soldiers on the ground. What I am saying is that to me, putting money and time towards helping these people is what support means. Put money and time towards veterans benefits, that’s fine. In fact, if the nation can build up a support network for people who need help, but can’t get it, I think soldiers, homeless people, people with very emotionally taxing jobs, and mental health patients could all benefit.
Isn’t there a way to tell the troops “I disagree with your decision, I disagree with the orders you’re going to be given, I disagree with the necessity of your job, but when you get home, and after seeing what you’ll have seen, I think more money should be given to a support system for you, and I’ll be working while you’re away to reduce the need for your job”? Some would say that this all fits under “support the troops”, but I disagree. At the risk of giving the soldiers one more thing to worry about as they’re being deployed, it seems reasonable to me to make stipulations in your support. Perhaps this is too blunt, and perhaps the soldiers need more uplifting messages as they’re about to be dropped into the middle of a very emotionally and physically taxing situation. Maybe instead of being so negative, something like “I think war is wrong, and i think you shouldn’t have become a soldier. My form of support will be political action to bring troops home, and getting the United States to stop fighting wars in general” should be said.
For me, support doesn’t mean “I stand behind you whole-heartedly” or “I put you and your work on a pedestal, because you’re going through a lot in your line of work”. For me, support means “I want to help you get out your very painful, unfortunate set of circumstances”. It means actively working to stop the practice of starting wars, it means working to increase the support system nationwide (and not only for veterans), and it means being politically active to elect those who will work for this type of “support”. Yes, I support the troops, but I don’t give the military and the soldiers a free “support card” that puts them on a pedestal and protects them from criticism and dissent.
static to noise ratio
Thursday, April 16th, 2009I’ve been thinking recently about the concept of blogging, and what it means in certain contexts. In a lot of cases, bloggers are breaking news before mainstream news sources do. Other times, blogs are putting a new, different, perspective on something that is currently happening. It’s part of what happens on the internet, and it’s become almost common knowledge at this point.
You’ll find mainstream news sources picking up what prominent bloggers say, and using it as a source for their own reporting. Other times you find bloggers picking up what other bloggers are saying, and building off of that. It’s almost as though bloggers have become the front-line filter between what’s happening, and what gets reported.
Recently, one of my friends wrote about his thoughts on political issues, which he doesn’t normally do. I’ve been finding a lot of what this particular person writes to strike a certain chord with me, and it hits home more than what I find myself reading elsewhere. I acknowledge I’m biased, and I acknowledge that a lot of what he writes isn’t exactly synthesis of what’s going on around him, but more his general view on the world.
This concept made me wonder what bloggers are actually doing. Yeah, a lot of them are reporting things first, but many do also put their own outlook on it into their writing. In terms of fact, you tend to need to sift through the opinion stuff. That said, there’s a lot of good material, and many times, the opinions are well thought out.
What you’ll often see when reading through blogs is that they’re addressing a current political issue, seemingly in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will read what they have to say. I think this seems to be the crux of the issue. You find mainstream news sources (I’m looking at you CNN) occasionally taking posts from the internet (or blogosphere, if you prefer that term. I don’t) and using these posts as a basis for their reporting. How do they pick what they report on?
Because of the apparent level of opinion on a topic that gets put into blog posts, it’s clear that blogging isn’t just idle writing by people who are bored. It’s clear that people think they have an audience, or they wouldn’t continue doing it. Presumably these people’s audience tends to agree with the people writing, or they wouldn’t continue to read the writing. What this means, in the end, is that there are large amounts of people with similar opinions on issues, expressing these issues on the internet. One would think politicians would pay attention to this.
What seems curious to me is this: Arguably all of these bloggers, and readers, and commenters, and people linking to other blogs all have valid, viable opinions that are worth discussing. Why aren’t their views being discussed until after they filter through the mainstream news media? It seems as though it’s because there are just simply too many people, all talking at once. Consider for a second the general metaphor of signal in the noise (derived from old broadcasting terminology, the signal is what you’re looking for, the noise is a bunch of other junk that is also broadcast, but not useful). It seems, at least superficially, that all of these bloggers (and subsequently commenters, etc.) have opinions at least relatively worth listening to. If we follow the previously mentioned metaphor, all of these bloggers are signal.
Clearly there’s a lot of other stuff going on (the noise in our metaphor), but even still, the signal should be getting picked up. To a degree, it is. Things like the Huffington Post try to take the best of their pool of bloggers, and give it a public face. Places like CNN tend to take stories that are showing up in a lot of blogs, and synthesizing them further, then reporting them. Is this really where blogging is headed? Are bloggers really just the front-lines of news? Does news really have to go event->blogs (potentially repeated 10 times)->mainstream news->the masses? That’s potentially n+3 times of interpretation of what happens (where n is the number of bloggers the stuff goes through before it hits the final blogger that then causes mainstream news to pick it up).
I’m not sure what my point is, it’s 2:15am, and I should’ve been asleep an hour ago. Ultimately, it seems as though bloggers aren’t being heard the way they should be, which really boils down to the idea that the masses/governement/mainstream news isn’t really listening to the opinions of the people. Yes, bloggers have a lot of signal in the scheme of the overall broadcast, but I worry that even this signal from the bloggers is too noisy. That is, by the nature of blogging, and having lots of people doing it, the signal becomes a type of noise in it’s own right. How do we find the signal in the signal in the nosie?
more obama awesomeness
Monday, April 6th, 2009The EFF reports that the Obama administration seems to be continuing the Bush administrations practice of not being held accountable for the warrantless wiretapping that took place. The Obama administration has filed a motion to dismiss a current case, Jewel vs. NSA, that the EFF has brought in an attempt to hold the NSA accountable for breaking the law, and spying on millions of Americans.
Obama had consistently touted that if he were to become president, government would be more transparent and accessible than ever before, people would be held accountable for their actions, and civil liberties would start being upheld again. This doesn’t seem to be a move in any of those directions, and if anything is a move further away from all of them. This is the second time that I’ve seen Obama’s administration step back from what they had said, turn to secrecy, and side with the status quo. Change my ass.
I’m starting to seriously wonder if Obama isn’t really as staunch in his viewpoints as I once thought. I hoped that he would be able to move past ‘the way things have always been done’, and start actually reforming something. I hoped he was young and capable enough to stand up, and tell Washington that he wasn’t playing by their rules. Apparently I was wrong. Apparently state secrecy, maintaining the ‘infallible, we’re always right’ image, and catering to big corporations will continue to be the way Washington operates.
Why cover it up? It’s pretty well known that there was warrantless wiretapping going on, and it’s even generally accepted that this wiretapping was illegal. Furthermore, it’s pretty well known that at least AT&T, but more likely than not all the telephone companies were involved. Yet, no one is being held accountable. No one is even acknowledging that such a thing occurred. It’s all ’state secrets’ and ‘national security’. Why hide if nothings been done wrong? It’s the same argument I’ve heard time and time again when I would talk to people about the government spying on the public. “Why do you care? It’s not like you have anything to hide”.
So, Mr. Obama, tell us the truth. I mean really, why do you care? It’s not like the government has anything to hide. If the government is in the right in what they’ve been doing, presumably the people will agree. If not, shouldn’t the government be held accountable?
potential end of an era
Monday, April 6th, 2009The Chicago Tribune writes that for the first time in 18 years, the media was there when the body of a soldier fighting in Afghanistan was brought back to the United States. As per a new Pentagon policy, the family of Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers was asked if they would allow media to be there when Myers’ body returned to Dover Air Force Base. The family agreed to media coverage, but did not want to be photographed or interviewed.
First, let me say, it is a horrible thing when someone dies in the military. Furthermore, the feelings of the family of the person who has died should be considered. A lot of people have attributed the change in policy of 18 years ago that stopped allowing media to be there when the bodies of soldiers returned home as a way to hide the human cost of war. That is, if the public isn’t directly seeing the number of bodies coming back to the States, they’re less likely to feel the cost of war, and less likely to protest, a la Vietnam.
I tend to agree, that is the outcome. Maybe it’s not intentional, maybe it is, I can’t say. I do however feel that it’s important for the media to be allowed access as bodies return to US soil. I also feel that it’s important for media to be allowed in a war area, at the Republican National Convention, and ultimately anywhere and everywhere something affecting the public is taking place.
Media presence when bodies are returning home is just one way the media can act as a watchdog for public policy. I tend to think of the media as the whistleblowers to the government, and notifying the public of what’s going on at all levels. Ideally this just means reporting, although it could mean exposing corruption, providing opposing opinion, and getting a dialogue going about a topic. This can’t happen if the media isn’t allowed in certain places.
What does this new Pentagon policy mean? Well, it means families will now be asked if they’ll allow a media presence at the return of their loved one’s body. Some will say yes, and some will say no. Personally, I hope all of the families say yes. I hope the American public starts seeing the human cost of war, the images of caskets draped in American flags coming home every day or two. I don’t mean to de-value the lives of those soldiers, quite the opposite. All lives are important, and I would guess the majority of the American public agrees with me. If the public starts seeing how many people are losing their lives to wars started by a ’sheriff mentality’ president who seemed to think everything could and should be solved by violence, I hope the public would start to wake up.
This isn’t about anti-military, or anti-bush, or anti-republican. It’s about anti-war, and pro-peace. It’s about acknowledging we’re losing a significant portion of our population to undermine other nations sovreignty. For me, it’s about making people care again. I hope that bringing a human element back to the numbers we still hear occassionally on the news will make people start to listen.
one more thing to ignore while we fix the economic crisis
Sunday, January 25th, 2009You all remember the whole warrantless wiretapping thing that came out a few years ago? Essentially, the NSA was wiretapping US citizens without a warrant, as a form of counter-terrorism. Yes, people got up in arms about it at the time, no one was held accountable, a FISA bill was passed to grant immunity to anyone accountable, and the country moved on, in the name of “National Security”. So we’re done with it, right?
Not quite. It has recently come out that the NSA (National Security Agency) was not only wiretapping those people that were considered terrorists either internally or outside of US borders (the NSAs claim for a while was that they were only wiretapping externally). No, according the The Register, the NSA was actively watching journalists and news organizations. What’s the difference between this and what they were known to have been doing before? Well, first, it has been thought that the warrantless wiretapping was automated, flagging people automatically using algorithms. Actively watching journalists and news organizations means going beyond using generic computer algorithms, and assigning human work hours to this task.
Why is this a bigger deal than warrantless wiretapping? For starters, it means the project was significantly further reacher than previously thought, which leads us to the question “Who else were they watching?”. Just because we only know of two instances (warrantless wiretapping, and watching journalists/news organizations) doesn’t mean there aren’t others out there. Universities maybe? What about ISPs or other tech companies? All easy targets with large amounts of data on their users.
Second, there’s the whole “First Amendment” thing, wherein “the Press” is granted the ability to report on anything, without fear of repercussion. Now, maybe it’s just me being paranoid, but if there’s a government agency watching journalists and news organizations, without said journalists and/or news organizations knowing, doesn’t that open a lot of doors for censorship/surveillance without any accountability?
How far does the word “journalist” extend? According to the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) bloggers’ rights page,
if you engage in journalism, you’re a journalist.
This means that bloggers very easily fall under the NSA program of spying on journalists. This means that high school newspapers across the country could have been targeted.
Where does this leave us, as citizens? Does it mean we need to constantly live in fear of our govenrnment, since we don’t have any way of knowing if they are watching what we say on the internet? Hopefully not.
What it does mean is that we need to modify the way our government thinks about our rights as citizens, and how these rights extend into the digital age. A while ago, Phi said
This could also open up a wonderful public discussion of security in general, which impacts everything from Facebook to ATM PINs to electronic voting machines, things that are woven deep into the fabric of our social, economic, and political lives.
in reference to Obama’s wanting to use his blackberry/email as a way to communicate. If we raise awareness among the populace, and among law-makers, as to what we want, we really could change the way security/privacy is looked at.
I’m scared. I don’t trust our government, particularly not the more clandestine organizations. The legal battles over digital privacy are still being fought, and so it falls upon us as citizens to take our digital privacy into our own hands until such time as the legal status of digital privacy has been vetted.
We have the techonology with which to secure our email interactions, and we have the technology with which to secure any internet activity at all. The issue with using either of these technologies is that nobody else uses them.
I can encrypt my email, but if the person on the other end can’t un-encrypt it, that’s useless. I can use services like Tor, but if only the techno-nerds are the ones using it, it doesn’t help anyone else, and the proliferation doesn’t spread.
I’m not normally one to get roused over the idea of constitutional rights, because generally speaking, I don’t feel, personally, my rights being infringed upon. It’s absolutely selfish, but it’s how I get through my day. However, this issue is bigger than me. As we move more and more of our lives online, “into the cloud”, we expose ourselves more and more. Not only to our friends (arguably one of the benefits of doing so), but to anyone with the know-how to access it, and the technology/political power to allow them to do so. What’s the cost? I could entirely remove myself from the internet, but then I lose out on the wonder of technology (and I’d have to switch majors). I could continue doing what I’m doing, but that exposes a lot about me to almost anyone.
Instead, I advocate pushing back. Take security into our own hands, force the issue for the government, the companies who’s products we use, the email services we use, and even our employers/universities to provide the infrastructure we want. The infrastructure we arguably need.
Now that I’ve flagged myself in an NSA database somewhere, I’m going to go hole myself up somewhere until they come for me.
Technology in the Whitehouse: Follow-up
Thursday, January 22nd, 2009The Obama administration arrived. All is well. Hypothetically, anyway, apparently the level of technology the Obama team was used to during the campaign/transition period is just unavailable. I hashed this out in an earlier post, but it still astounds me that our leaders are so far behind our populace.
Don’t get me wrong, there are still people in the United States that think if they click the wrong button on their computer, it will explode. There are still people who just don’t want to use all the new-fangled stuff, and are perfectly happy with 10 year old cell phones. This doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be better off with a more technologically integrated lifestyle. Even those people who like their old cell phones will probably admit that having a GPS in their car could save them time (so they didn’t have to pull off the road to read a map).
Geeks have, for a while now, wondered why Washington seems to be so out of touch with technology concerns of the day. I don’t have an answer, and this does’t put new light on things, except that Washington really is in the dark ages. One Obama spokes person compared the experience as “going from an Xbox to an Atari”. The fact that this guy can even make the analogy speaks wonders about the current administration! We wouldn’t have heard anything of the sort from a Bush spokesperson (unless terrorism was thrown in 3 times. “going from a terrorist Xbox to a terrorist Atari, it’s like terrorism).
On top of all the challenges this new administration faces (global warming, the economy, two different wars, gay rights, abortion issues, etc. etc.), can they really pull off changing the system in Washington to allow for better implementation of technology? Rumors are saying Obama may be able to keep his blackberry for personal use, but has to use some ancient smartphone for business use. Granted, the dinosaurphone has been vetted by the NSA, but this was still 4 years ago!
Can we step back, chill out, and approach this problem from a new angle? Updating infrastructure won’t be fixed by going at it the same way Washington always has. Get some tech companies to submit products to the NSA to be vetted, keep the process moving along! This isn’t hard folks, you just have to step outside your little box.
There’s been steps taken, absolutely. The fact that Obama is even wanting a smartphone is a good thing. The fact that whitehouse.gov is all Creative Commons licensed is a good thing (as is this site, by the way). These are steps in the right direction, but these types of small steps won’t get you to the peak of the mountain that is the technology issue in Washington.
