Updated: 5/7/02; 7:58:20 PM.
there is no spoon
there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path
        

Monday, April 15, 2002

how about "hopeless act of hope"? Eric Olsen offers some thoughtful remarks on the proper term for those who, um, commit suicide by incendiary device in order to attack others. I'm pretty satisifed with "suicide bombers" myself -- it says about everything that needs to be said, AFAIC. Olsen is jumping off of this discussion at lgf, which is also very good. I'd even go so far as to say that this answers my question below (about the echo chamber thing) -- this is an example, I'd say, of people getting a lot furhter out of their own bubbles than they'd get if blogs didn't exist. (I know, I know -- exchanges like this have been happening on listserves for years, but somehow this doesn't seem the same. So what's new here?)  10:17:48 PM      comment

right wing reverberations: Why do conservative viewpoints "come off better" on TV and radio than do liberal viewpoints? According to Todd Gitlin (in an interview today on Salon.com), it's simply a matter of, well, simplicity:

*top quote* Some of the argument is made by Jeffrey Scheuer in his book "The Sound Bite Society." What plays best on television is melodrama, what I call "percussive punditry," in which the point is to pound and to stir resounding reverberations. That's easier done when you have polarized positions and simple, moralistic declarations. The right is better at that than the left. The right isn't interested in nuance. Rush Limbaugh's people proudly call themselves Dittoheads. The left has many sins, but people on the left tend to be looser and more uncomfortable with flat moralistic declarations. This imbalance gives an advantage to the right. *bottom quote*

And why is Fox News so popular?

*top quote* People like Fox better than CNN. They like Bill O'Reilly's kick-ass style. CNN is the unchromed, stripped-down truck and Fox is some sort of snazzy, rattling muffler sports car. That's one factor. Secondly, a war mood brings out an aggressive devotion to simplification. CNN is scared of its shadow on this score, going back to the Gulf War when Peter Arnett was excoriated for staying in Baghdad and accused of virtual treason by Alan K. Simpson, the former senator from Wyoming, and others. [Simpson called Arnett an Iraqi sympathizer but later apologized.] *bottom quote*

So I wonder... If you watch Fox News -- why? What's the attraction? And what do you say to the claim that the right simplifies things more than the left? Is this why the Democrats are floundering? (A related question is whether the Democrats really have anything to do with "the left" anymore, but perhaps that's a tangent.) Finally, Gitlin provides a great summary for the main question I have about the internet: is it an echo chamber? And why should we care? Gitlin says:

*top quote* If part of what you want in a democracy is not simply that people express themselves but that they deliberate, then it's important for them to get out of their bubbles. So the question is: Does the Internet perfect the bubbles and enable environmentalists to chat with other environmentalists while neo-Nazi skinheads chat with neo-Nazi skinheads, or is there some cross-fertilization and encounter going on? *bottom quote*

So yeah, deliberation is good, and cross-fertilization is good. Are weblogs making that happen, or are weblogs increasing the echo-chamber effect?   10:17:17 PM      comment

glutton for punishment: The most provocative domestic political story I've seen recently is the Cynthia McKinney call for an investigation of what the Bush Admin. knew prior to 9-11. Last I checked, 35 people had linked to this on Daypop. That's quite a few links. So, of course, I had to check and see what people are saying about this. The result is predictable: people don't like it when you challenge the beliefs that prop up their sense of security, and that's what McKinney is doing. Challenging Bush on "the war" requires that we question all that we've been told for the last seven months about who is "evil," what "evil" is, and what we should do about it. It's probably clear that I think it's high time we start asking those questions in a serious way, and that's what I see McKinney doing. However, a majority of linkers seem to prefer a retreat to the talking heads counter-claim: McKinney is crazy, irresponsible, immature, a publicity hound, etc. So far, I haven't seen any serious examination of her record, although many refer to another high-profile move McKinney made recently: After N.Y. Mayor Giuliani rejected it, McKinney asked Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia if she could have the $10 million he was going to donate to N.Y. -- she said she could use it for African-American causes. Again, this doesn't sound like a crazy person to me; it sounds like someone who is willing to take risks to make a point.

Here's a few of the things people are saying about the article:

  1. enigmous : *top quote* How the heck did this moron ever get elected...FIVE TIMES?!? How stupid do you have to be to realize that Congress is no place for a stupid, paranoid conspiracy theorist? These claims are ridiculous. There has never been a presidential administration so corrupt as to allow a terrorist attack on this nation. Don't start on Pearl Harbor, either. The White House is not as mighty and powerful as conspiracy theorists like to make it out to be. *bottom quote*
  2. The Van 46 asks: Is she completly off her rocker, begging for attention, or making an important point?
  3. shtv says: "looks like someone is paying attention after all..."
  4. Ron's Log says: "Georgia democrat goes simply fucking insane."
  5. What Are They Saying calls this Yet another reason why this feminist, pro-gay rights environmentalist may not be voting for a single Democratic candidate this year. This site also links to the story about McKinney and the Saudi $10 million offer. 
  6. Photo Dude's Web Log goes all out to cite other people who want to discredit McKinney. 
  7. USS Clueless basically echoes "she's crazy," but also helpfully links to the text of the letter McKinney wrote to Alwaleed about the $10 million. Definitely worth a read for context. 
  8. kausfiles.com calls the story "unbelievable" and says the only person who would benefit from anti-Bush hostility would be Hillary Clinton: "She can tap into all this pent-up emotion." Uh, no. We'll all benefit if/when the world starts asking serious questions of Buish and demanding answers. If you want to call that "hostility" you're not helping anything and you're clearly not interested in democracy. 
  9. J's Notes says: "Remind me to comment about this nut case later." 
  10. Politics in the Zeros points out that, " Like Barbara Lee ( the only member of the House to vote against giving the President a free hand to attack terrorists), McKinney is a black woman." So, um exactly what are we supposed to make of that?
  10:16:41 PM      comment

 
April 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
Mar   May
Home
alternet
salon
appleturns
macsurfer
Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

© Copyright 2002 mowabb.
Last update: 5/7/02; 7:58:20 PM.