Posts
To listen to the political pundits, you would think that last night’s YouTube debate ushered in a new golden age of politics. Like everything else that get’s lumped in with technology and in particular, social networking sites like YouTube, it’s given a free pass and little or no scrutiny. Technology=good, or better, great, every time.
While some articles pointed out the paucity of substantive questions, most were willing to lionize the gimmickry and mostly irrelevant questions, as some kind of watershed event in the way that political dialogue will now be carried out. Whether we have questioners dressed as snowmen, or yielding assault rifles, or the scripted questions being spoonfed by the likes of Jim Lehrer, the current debate format absolutely sucks!
I didn’t watch the debate, but I could have predicted the near orgasmic gushing that would follow the proceedings. Which brings us back to the questions, which I viewed online and from transcripts of the debate. The form which we ask our questions will determine the answers that we get. As Francis Bacon put it, some 350 years ago, “There arises from bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction of the mind.” Bacon’s quote is a fitting definition for stupidity, which our culture is drowning in at the present time.
As Postman commented upon, in Conscientious Objections, it may be that "we have adapted ourselves to disinformation, to Newspeak, to public relations hype, to imagery disguised as thought, to picture newspapers (USA Today comes to mind) and magazines, to religion revealed in the form of entertainment, to politics in the form of a thirty-second television commercial."
This last one is what our political debates are about—30-second television commercials.
Take for instance Hillary Clinton, when asked if she considered herself a “liberal,” demurred by answering Rob Porter’s YouTube clip by saying that she preferred the word “progressive.”
This won’t be a problem for Clinton because no one but a few sticklers for historicity, even know what the hell progressive once stood for. For all the brain-addled masses know, her self-identifying as a “progressive’ might mean that she’s been bought and paid for by Progressive Insurance, since we’re not far away from having corporate spots accenting our political events, like our sports; as if that would be a problem—our candidates are already bought and sold.
Not that it matters, but when I hear Clinton call herself a progressive, I alternate between laughter and screams. Some of us still know what the term once meant—particularly as it was used during the 19th century, when it came to mean a definite alternative to the conservative solutions being offered in dealing with the social and economic issues of the day.
Historically, progressive candidates, particularly in the early years of the 20th century, were concerned with social justice and workers rights, not being some watered down version of conservatism that much of Clinton’s platform represents.
For those who have read about progressives like Robert “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, a man who in his day was called “arguably the most important and recognized leader of the opposition to the growing dominance of corporations over the Government.” Not something that Ms. Clinton would know much about.
You see, true progressives, like LaFollette, actually had some backbone and principals, something that Clinton knows little about. LaFollette, was a friend of Emma Goldman, who called LaFollette "the finest, most inconsistent anarchist" of his time. Can you imagine any modern candidate, who associated with the likes of known radicals, like Goldman, having a chance in the era of "handled" candidates--people who have every wardrobe, as well as word, picked out for them, to wear and say?
LaFollette was a man so fierce in his convictions that he would risk consignment to political oblivion rather than abandon an unpopular position. He represented the antithesis of the elected officials whose compromises characterize our contemporary condition, officials like Hillary Clinton.
La Follette believed strongly that the inheritors of America's revolutionary tradition would, if given the truth, opt not for moderation but for the most radical of solutions. This doesn’t sound much like Clinton, or Obama, for that matter.
No, Mrs. Clinton, you may not be a liberal, but you most certainly aren’t a progressive, at least in a historical sense.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Dark and getting darker
There are no easy answers to life’s questions. Maybe that’s why fewer and fewer people seem to care about searching for any. It’s much easier to follow sports, or invest in reality-based television. Your investment allows you to experience a common bond with thousands of other people and while it leads to groupthink, there is a certain comfort in conformity.
Concern about the dumbing down of the masses isn’t new, at least in America. Writers and thinkers have been conscious of this for decades, if not longer. One of the classic books on the subject, Richard Hofstadter’s, Anti-intellectualism in American Life spoke to these issues 40 years ago. Things haven’t gotten measurably better since Hofstadter. Others more recently, notably Morris Berman, have waxed eloquent about the ramifications of America’s functional illiteracy and our nation’s cultural decline.
As a consequence of letting others do our thinking for us, we’ve seen book reading fall out of favor (with all due respect to Harry Potter), political civility and discourse at all-time lows and the supply of social capital continue to decline. None of this bodes well for democracy and many of the institutions that exist to further it, here in the “homeland” (an Orwellian term if there ever was one) and abroad.
Consumin’ is what we do. When two buildings melted to the ground, our president sent us to the malls. As James Mitchell, cultural critic said, “There is barely an empty space in our culture not already carrying commercial messages." Nowhere is this more evident than the world of sports. While billboards and signage has always graced ballparks and other venues, now every pause and segue is brought to you by some corporate behemoth. George Steiner had it right when he said that we live in a “systematic suppression of silence.”
Back to Hofstadter, this is not new. However, we’ve taken a turn for the worse, in my opinion, as the intellectual is ridiculed and knowledge becomes suspect and something to scoff at. We now need everything spoon fed to us—our news, our entertainment and our politics.
Berman has a new book, a blog and if interested, here’s a review of Dark Ages, America: The Final Phase of Empire. From the review is the following paragraph that helps sum up what I see as pervasive in our culture--the tyranny of the individual.
The ethos of American individualism is Berman’s particular preoccupation. It has frontier roots but is also an effect (as well as a contributing cause) of the victory of automobiles and suburbanization over mass transit and European-style city planning. "The relentless American habit of choosing the individual solution over the collective one," Berman writes, underlies "the design of our cities, including the rise of a car culture, the growth of the suburbs, and the nature of our architecture, [which] has had an overwhelming impact on the life of the nation as a whole, reflecting back on all the issues discussed [in this book]: work, children, media, community, economy, technology, globalization, and, especially, US foreign policy. The physical arrangements of our lives mirror the spiritual ones."
In one of his comments on the blog, Berman mentions that he doubts any more than one percent of Americans know what a metaphor is and the inherent difficultly of living with that, as conversation becomes more and more of a challenge—unless of course you want to talk about sports.
In wrapping up this somewhat disjointed post—there’s some unresolved tension in the thoughts and ideas that Berman has me pondering and I’m trying to process, but I’m not sure what the resolution is at the moment and maybe there is none to be had.
I’m thinking back to some of the prior reading I’ve done from writers like Neil Postman, Jacques Ellul and others; I was struck by the following passage from an essay on Herbert Marcuse that I located at the website of Logos, a quarterly journal with some interesting topics pertaining to modern culture, politics and society at large.
The essay on Marcuse, written by Arnold Farr, is titled, “Democracy, Social Change and One-Dimensionality: Reviving Marcuse.” Farr is citing Marcuse and his essay, “Social Implications of Technology,” where Marcuse has this to say about technology:
Technology, as a mode of production, as the totality of instruments, devices and contrivances which characterize the machine age is thus at the same time a mode of organizing and perpetuating (or changing) social relationships, a manifestation of prevalent thought and behavior patterns, an instrument for control and domination.
Farr adds his commentary on Marcuse, utilizing the dialectic between the liberation that technology always promises and the oppression that often gets delivered, discussing why most Americans get so uptight when technology is criticized.
Also, with respect to technology, many people are given just enough of the benefits of the technological society that they are afraid of rebelling for fear that they may lose what they have. Even the poorest homes have a TV set.
Farr's commentary on Marcuse's critique of technology would be one that I’d be most comfortable with and concur that it is more accurate, citing the negative implications of technology and not granting it the status of savior of mankind that it most often gets credited as being; catalyst for consumption maybe.
Berman’s dismal assertion (while probably anecdotal) concerning awareness of metaphor is troubling.
Concern about the dumbing down of the masses isn’t new, at least in America. Writers and thinkers have been conscious of this for decades, if not longer. One of the classic books on the subject, Richard Hofstadter’s, Anti-intellectualism in American Life spoke to these issues 40 years ago. Things haven’t gotten measurably better since Hofstadter. Others more recently, notably Morris Berman, have waxed eloquent about the ramifications of America’s functional illiteracy and our nation’s cultural decline.
As a consequence of letting others do our thinking for us, we’ve seen book reading fall out of favor (with all due respect to Harry Potter), political civility and discourse at all-time lows and the supply of social capital continue to decline. None of this bodes well for democracy and many of the institutions that exist to further it, here in the “homeland” (an Orwellian term if there ever was one) and abroad.
Consumin’ is what we do. When two buildings melted to the ground, our president sent us to the malls. As James Mitchell, cultural critic said, “There is barely an empty space in our culture not already carrying commercial messages." Nowhere is this more evident than the world of sports. While billboards and signage has always graced ballparks and other venues, now every pause and segue is brought to you by some corporate behemoth. George Steiner had it right when he said that we live in a “systematic suppression of silence.”
Back to Hofstadter, this is not new. However, we’ve taken a turn for the worse, in my opinion, as the intellectual is ridiculed and knowledge becomes suspect and something to scoff at. We now need everything spoon fed to us—our news, our entertainment and our politics.
Berman has a new book, a blog and if interested, here’s a review of Dark Ages, America: The Final Phase of Empire. From the review is the following paragraph that helps sum up what I see as pervasive in our culture--the tyranny of the individual.
The ethos of American individualism is Berman’s particular preoccupation. It has frontier roots but is also an effect (as well as a contributing cause) of the victory of automobiles and suburbanization over mass transit and European-style city planning. "The relentless American habit of choosing the individual solution over the collective one," Berman writes, underlies "the design of our cities, including the rise of a car culture, the growth of the suburbs, and the nature of our architecture, [which] has had an overwhelming impact on the life of the nation as a whole, reflecting back on all the issues discussed [in this book]: work, children, media, community, economy, technology, globalization, and, especially, US foreign policy. The physical arrangements of our lives mirror the spiritual ones."
In one of his comments on the blog, Berman mentions that he doubts any more than one percent of Americans know what a metaphor is and the inherent difficultly of living with that, as conversation becomes more and more of a challenge—unless of course you want to talk about sports.
In wrapping up this somewhat disjointed post—there’s some unresolved tension in the thoughts and ideas that Berman has me pondering and I’m trying to process, but I’m not sure what the resolution is at the moment and maybe there is none to be had.
I’m thinking back to some of the prior reading I’ve done from writers like Neil Postman, Jacques Ellul and others; I was struck by the following passage from an essay on Herbert Marcuse that I located at the website of Logos, a quarterly journal with some interesting topics pertaining to modern culture, politics and society at large.
The essay on Marcuse, written by Arnold Farr, is titled, “Democracy, Social Change and One-Dimensionality: Reviving Marcuse.” Farr is citing Marcuse and his essay, “Social Implications of Technology,” where Marcuse has this to say about technology:
Technology, as a mode of production, as the totality of instruments, devices and contrivances which characterize the machine age is thus at the same time a mode of organizing and perpetuating (or changing) social relationships, a manifestation of prevalent thought and behavior patterns, an instrument for control and domination.
Farr adds his commentary on Marcuse, utilizing the dialectic between the liberation that technology always promises and the oppression that often gets delivered, discussing why most Americans get so uptight when technology is criticized.
Also, with respect to technology, many people are given just enough of the benefits of the technological society that they are afraid of rebelling for fear that they may lose what they have. Even the poorest homes have a TV set.
Farr's commentary on Marcuse's critique of technology would be one that I’d be most comfortable with and concur that it is more accurate, citing the negative implications of technology and not granting it the status of savior of mankind that it most often gets credited as being; catalyst for consumption maybe.
Berman’s dismal assertion (while probably anecdotal) concerning awareness of metaphor is troubling.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Clarification, apology and a side of crow
This will be my third post related to the NPR story that ran, July 3rd, on the depressed mill town of Skowhegan, Maine. The feature, produced by reporter Adam Davidson, portrayed Skowhegan in a light that I characterized as overly negative.
In my analysis and then, the posting of a letter I wrote, I took some "pot shots" at Davidson that were unfair and unprofessional. He's a journalist and he came to Skowhegan in search of a story. He left with what he fairly, or unfairly felt were the issues he discovered on the ground.
Mr. Davidson earned my respect by emailing me and offering me additional perspective. He didn't have to do this and I commend him for taking the time to do so; in my own email back to him, I explained my own thoughts/feelings, as well as apologizing for my personal attack upon him as a journalist. Without sharing all the details, let me say that here are a few points that need to be made, before putting this to bed (which, seeing it's nearing 2 am, might be something I ought to consider doing with my own sorry self).
1) Mr. Davidson didn't do a "drive by" story, as I insinuated, but was on the ground in the Skowhegan area for four days. Apparently that's more than the usual time spent by NPR reporters, which begs the question, "how can you fully understand cultural issues germane to a story like his, without spending even more time than that, talking with locals and actually beginning to crack the cultural code of rural places?"
2) He felt some of his subjects, particularly Mary Jane Clifford, the town's General Assistance director, were articulate spokespeople for the town. I still disagree and think she came across as one-dimensional, but that's my opinion.
3) Mr. Davidson's job is not to write puff pieces, but to tell the truth. I agree with that, I just think a bit more balance on the more "positive" side, like including something about a business that's chosen to locate to Skowhegan, like Backyard Farms, would have helped to at least leave a listener with something positive to "hang their hat on."
Blogging tends to be imperfect in the sense that it allows someone who processes by writing, to spew and issue pronouncements and occasionally treat people with less respect than is fair, which is what I did in the case of Mr. Davidson.
I've responded to Davidson with my own email and promise to try to use Words Matter less as my own personal launch pad and more as a place to disseminate information, albeit uniquely informed with my own thoughts, opinions and yes, biases.
In my analysis and then, the posting of a letter I wrote, I took some "pot shots" at Davidson that were unfair and unprofessional. He's a journalist and he came to Skowhegan in search of a story. He left with what he fairly, or unfairly felt were the issues he discovered on the ground.
Mr. Davidson earned my respect by emailing me and offering me additional perspective. He didn't have to do this and I commend him for taking the time to do so; in my own email back to him, I explained my own thoughts/feelings, as well as apologizing for my personal attack upon him as a journalist. Without sharing all the details, let me say that here are a few points that need to be made, before putting this to bed (which, seeing it's nearing 2 am, might be something I ought to consider doing with my own sorry self).
1) Mr. Davidson didn't do a "drive by" story, as I insinuated, but was on the ground in the Skowhegan area for four days. Apparently that's more than the usual time spent by NPR reporters, which begs the question, "how can you fully understand cultural issues germane to a story like his, without spending even more time than that, talking with locals and actually beginning to crack the cultural code of rural places?"
2) He felt some of his subjects, particularly Mary Jane Clifford, the town's General Assistance director, were articulate spokespeople for the town. I still disagree and think she came across as one-dimensional, but that's my opinion.
3) Mr. Davidson's job is not to write puff pieces, but to tell the truth. I agree with that, I just think a bit more balance on the more "positive" side, like including something about a business that's chosen to locate to Skowhegan, like Backyard Farms, would have helped to at least leave a listener with something positive to "hang their hat on."
Blogging tends to be imperfect in the sense that it allows someone who processes by writing, to spew and issue pronouncements and occasionally treat people with less respect than is fair, which is what I did in the case of Mr. Davidson.
I've responded to Davidson with my own email and promise to try to use Words Matter less as my own personal launch pad and more as a place to disseminate information, albeit uniquely informed with my own thoughts, opinions and yes, biases.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
School consolidation update
I’ve been interested in rural issues for quite some time; part of this comes from living in a state, when classified using various criteria and methods, almost always ends up with a rural designation. Plus, other than Portland, there is no area of the state that has what could be called an “urban” vibe.
Additionally, reading Wendell Berry helped root my philosophy squarely in the camp of the rural, rather than the urban. Other writers, like Edward Abbey and to a smaller degree, Barbara Kingsolver, have helped me to understand that community is fostered by an approach that connects people to the land and ultimately, place.
Having spent quite a bit of time of late in rural western Maine and seeing some entrepreneurial educational models that work, I’ve grown increasingly concerned that the governor’s push towards consolidation and ultimately, the regionalization of the state’s schools, is detrimental to areas, like Franklin County and other rural areas of the state. Overly simplistic and concerned merely with what looks like a winner on paper, as in big=efficient, Maine—already lagging behind many other states in preparing its 21st century workforce—will continue to fall further behind if this consolidation boondoggle flies.
From the blog at Rural Matters, I found this older post (posted in February), which points out some flaws in Governor Baldacci’s plan for consolidation; like the plan has no data to support it—but why should that deter the Guv? Having determined that this will work, irrespective of data, all indicators point out that it’s full speed ahead on the plan, education quality and rural communities be damned!
BTW, successful small school models don’t work well only in rural Maine, either, as this report points out.
Additionally, reading Wendell Berry helped root my philosophy squarely in the camp of the rural, rather than the urban. Other writers, like Edward Abbey and to a smaller degree, Barbara Kingsolver, have helped me to understand that community is fostered by an approach that connects people to the land and ultimately, place.
Having spent quite a bit of time of late in rural western Maine and seeing some entrepreneurial educational models that work, I’ve grown increasingly concerned that the governor’s push towards consolidation and ultimately, the regionalization of the state’s schools, is detrimental to areas, like Franklin County and other rural areas of the state. Overly simplistic and concerned merely with what looks like a winner on paper, as in big=efficient, Maine—already lagging behind many other states in preparing its 21st century workforce—will continue to fall further behind if this consolidation boondoggle flies.
From the blog at Rural Matters, I found this older post (posted in February), which points out some flaws in Governor Baldacci’s plan for consolidation; like the plan has no data to support it—but why should that deter the Guv? Having determined that this will work, irrespective of data, all indicators point out that it’s full speed ahead on the plan, education quality and rural communities be damned!
BTW, successful small school models don’t work well only in rural Maine, either, as this report points out.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
This is not a beach blog
[Following Maine's "tourism road"
[Headed to Reid State Park]
[Surf's Up!]
[Beach Accoutrements]
[Beach Currency]
In an earlier post, I made much ado about forsaking the dusty diamonds of the Twilight League to spend a summer of leasure, sitting under an umbrella and relaxing by the sea, at Maine's abundant beaches. That was back in May and over the past six weeks, with lawn mowing, rainy weekends, a garage sale and a book signing last week, opportunities for dipping my toes in the Atlantic have totalled one--a trip to Popham Beach back on June 16.
Fortunately for me and the missus, this Saturday, our calendars were empty and the weather was sunny and warm, so off to Reid State Park we headed.
For those unfamiliar with Maine, Reid State Park is located in Georgetown, about 13 miles south of Bath (on Route 127). Leaving the well-travelled Route 1, normally choked with tourists this time of year, 127 winds its way past beautiful views of marshes and other scenic vistas, as it passes over numerous eddys and estuaries on the way to the state park.
Sitting on 700 acres of beautiful rocky coastline, juxtaposed next to saltwater marshes and ample tree growth, Reid State Park was Maine's first State-owned saltwater beach, with the land coming as a gift from Georgetown businessman and philanthropist, Walter E. Reid. Reid, who made his money in shipping, wanted to leave a lasting gift for the people of Maine, so he donated this diverse coastline habitat to the state, in 1946. Fortunately for Mainers of modest means, men like Reid have left us permanent access to our state's coastline, which at some point, with oceanfront property being snatched up by wealth out--of-staters, will probably be limited to just a few state parks. In light of this, Reid's gift takes on an even greater importance.
The state park has always held a special place in the hearts of Mary and I. Back in the day, nearly 30 years ago, when we first started dating (our 25th wedding anniversary is just around the corner), Reid was one of our favorite beaches to hang out at. Over the years, we've made trips back with our son, Mark and now, when we return, it is always a place filled with warm memories and meaning for both of us.
Yesterday, with temperatures right around 80, with a slight overcast, it was nearly the perfect beach day, weatherwise. If not for a rather sensitive sunburn on my shoulders, obtained by wearing a cutoff and no sunscreen, the day was exactly what the doctor ordered. Five hours of seaside bliss and ample time to pore over some back issues of magazines and fit in a little bit of reading of Ruth Moore's, The Walk Down Main Street, where the late Maine icon's fictional account of Maine High School basketball captures life Downeast, back in the day (probably the 1950s).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)