Gobsmacked in America; or The Tweetering Inferno

Oh blog, poor blog, you have been mightily not been much present for the Dear Readers of the world in 2017.

It's not your fault. Wailing negativity each and every day has dominated the news and the talk and politics and the personalities which a battered modern America has brought forth are fairly depressing. I really do not want to add even more weight to the self-manufactured drowning stones being looped around America's neck. So I've kept my mouth shut, my keyboard untouched.

And the information flowing from the political distortions of reality presented as fact is a likewise river of sewage pretending it's a princess. The emperor may have no clothes, to quote the fable, but in today's world none care but we will video him with their phone as he goes walking past. The screen is running the show.

So I've just been working on real human interactions. Not writing about it, not observing, living. Such tends to severely limit writing.

And the good and the positive which I have encountered this year, I've kept clutched silently to myself, as if such things were tattered remnants of a nation once proud and mostly honest. Festering sores aren't much use to share with one's fellow humans. Though if your fellow human is indeed covered in festering sores, maybe one should speak to it.

In more simple terms. the cheese has fallen right off the American cracker.

It's on the floor, even if you like, clean it off, put it back on the cracker, you'll know.


PS - Fear not dear reader. Your  Cup of Joe is here, even when quiet. There's 12 years worth of archives to read - just click on a month in the sidebar on the right. You can see how many dead links and dead websites and music and video sites that aren't around anymore. But I am still here. I be back.

The Fans That Destroyed The Earth

Who should play the next James Bond?

Why should fans of 007 pick the next performer to play the role? Are they so scared in Hollywood or that lazy?

Too often the Internets gets blocked up with What Fans Want.

Well, if a Fan of some genre or media knows so much, why are they just Fans? Can't they get the jobs to make the stuff that gets Fans?

Fans churn out reviews of movies and tv and books that are old, new and unmade - like they're possessed, and yet it's always about someone else's works. Fans even make videos of themselves opening packages of what they are Fans of, and those videos have millions of Fans.

Perhaps we shouldn't have provided Internets space to Fan Fiction, Fan Movies and Mashups, just insane niches that feed Fan Entitlement. ("My Little Pony" has, for instance, expanded and distorted into a weird mix of Salvador Dali and Larry Flynt.)

I get it - we make things from the artifacts of our lives. I've done it, but not in any coordinated Fan Horde Attacks.

And the Internets is a machine that builds Fans. See this "Sexts, Hugs, and Rock'nRoll" article about the ongoing DigiTour of ... well, never heard of these folks until now so I'll call them Internets Idols:

"With full lips, Bieber bangs, and piercing blue eyes, Hayes has the unsalted-butter looks of the love interest on a CW show or the villain in a John Hughes movie. He dresses in the superficially alternative but fundamentally nonthreatening uniform popularized by Urban Outfitters and adopted by every (white) Cool Guy in every high school in America: jeans, skate shoes, graphic T-shirt or baggy tank top with the armholes cut low. He speaks slowly and indistinctly, with a soft North Carolina accent. He has beautiful teeth."

And all he (Hayes) does is make Fans.

Fan demands of casting and scripting are ridiculous, media makers use them for publicity, but it's too far - look what happened to the simple science fiction awards known as Hugos: a weird Fan Coup has butchered the proceedings.

You're a Fan of something? Great. Shut up. I'm working here. 

It's Christmas So -- Guns!

The words "gun control" are all around us this holiday season, but the real debate here is about reducing massacres of innocent folks by heavily armed villains. But getting past the easy slogans about weapons is tough - that's why slogans work.

New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik tackles and exposes the many factual, real errors in the prevailing slogans in this essay. Some excerpts: (And be sure to read my NOTE below) --

"Gun laws solve nothing because terrorists, whether in Paris or San Bernardino, aren’t the sort of people who care about or obey them.This might properly be restated as follows: if a pickpocket steals your wallet on the bus, repeal the laws against pickpockets. If terrorists and criminals do still get guns, despite existing gun laws, there is no reason to have gun laws at all. But the goal of good social legislation is not to create impermeable dams that will stop every possible bad behavior; it is to put obstacles in their way. The imperfection of a system of restraints is an argument about the imperfection of all human systems. It is not an argument against restraints. What’s more, the special insight of recent criminology is to show that low walls work nearly as well as high ones, and are obviously much easier to build. Making any crime harder usually makes it much harder. If the terrorists in San Bernardino had had to work as hard at building guns as they did at building bombs, perhaps the guns would have worked as badly as the bombs did."
---
"There are already so many guns in circulation in the United States, and their owners are so determined to keep them, that introducing limits would have no practical effect. ... Piecemeal social reform tends to be slow, but it tends to be successful. (Many manageable middle-range changes, from ammunition control to “smarter” and more secure guns, have been suggested as passable paths to gun sanity.) One need look only at the history of smoking or of car safety to see that this is so. Cancer caused by cigarettes and deaths caused by traffic fatalities, which were once fixed and ubiquitous features of American life, have been vastly reduced by gradual reform."
---
"Even if gun control were a good thing, the Second Amendment renders its achievement impossible.  ... Does anyone believe that Madison and Mason, stumbling into the first-grade classroom where modern assault weaponry had blown apart twenty six-year-olds and six of their terrified caretakers, would then say, “Well, too bad—but, yes, that’sexactly what we meant by the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?"

NOTE: Whether guns or other ills which bring problems, I'm on the side of seeking solutions rather than giving up on any useful resolution. Problems have solutions. I endorse the right to keep and bear arms - it is a basic right. Reducing mass murder is the goal, as is public safety. Whipping up hysteria and rage at the mere thought of discussing this issue, framing such discussion as open warfare, is dangerous and pointless. We don't live in a cartoon. 

Merry Christmas.

Science Shows Why Stupid Folks Praise Stupid Folks

Pamela Geller

I'm somewhat happy to report there appears to be a theory to explain why deeply uninformed folks suffer from "illusory superiority".

Such a theory helps explain the idiocy of, for instance, folks in Texas who firmly believe the U.S. Military is prepping an attack on Texas and even why rabid hate-speakers like Pamela Geller considers herself a defender of Free Speech. This theory likely explains why some consider FOX News a source of "fair and balanced" journalism.

The theory is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

A 1999 study at Cornell University by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Krueger concluded that this effect is:

"... a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

Pretend News on FOX

"The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, because lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras."

Hoo boy, does that explain a lot of wacky thinking and talking from certain people and groups.

The summation here also notes such people:

fail to recognize their own lack of skill
fail to recognize genuine skill in others
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy

recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill

There is a very real threat and danger to the rest of us from the folks who suffer from their delusions of wisdom -- incompetence grows quickly and, when voiced by someone in a position of authority their madness gets legitimized as having some value or truth.

Jon Stewart - The Importance of Accountability

The clearest and most sane response to the loopy, hypocritical and dangerous trends in politics and media for this century has come from Jon Stewart and The Daily Show (echoed and amplified by The Colbert Report).

I can barely imagine what our world might have become without it. The awesome weight and power of the satire provided via Stewart's company of comedians and writers was inescapable and palpable. In the stormiest of times, the calm of laughter and the presence of wisdom somehow made such storms endurable.

America has a rich history of sharp and straight shooters who called "bullshit" when it needed to be called - Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Kurt Vonnegut. 

While I hate to see Stewart step away, I know that 16 years of televising the ridiculing of the Abyss must be deeply exhausting and trying. I hope he realizes how incredibly valuable and necessary his show has been. It isn't just a job well done, it's been a vital voice on a global scale. And it's a voice that was a collaboration of writers and producers most of us will never even know.

His first Daily Show broadcast tackled the ongoing lunacy of a President Clinton impeachment hearing, and perhaps, as the Obama presidency winds down, the nation may be entering a new cycle, We all hope for less lunacy, but really, a satirist can only point the way in which we should proceed.

I salute you, sir. I thank you. I hope we remember the importance of accountability.

Knox News Sentinel Kills Best Knoxville Newspaper

The news business seems more business than news.

Cable, network and local news devote most of their time to being entertaining. Showbiz ain't news.

Newspapers are dwarfed by online media, despite their efforts to evolve into online media. Somehow the concepts of paid writers and editors have lost all appeal to publishers. Case in point: the Knoxville News Sentinel just killed their own publication, Metro Pulse due to .... well, publisher Patrick Birmingham, aka President of Knoxville's Chamber of Commerce. Metro Pulse folks were gagged as soon as the closure was announced under penalty of loss of severance packages. Classy.

One constant writer with MP, Mike Gibson shared his take on the demise via comments at KnoxViews:

"And I want to say this: Patrick Birmingham is a spineless, half-bright corporate weasel. He never knew what the hell Metro Pulse was, or what to do with it. He and Scripps' team of pencil-necked corporate bean counters were always harassing the editors for not meeting some imaginary profit projections, goals conceived in an airless vacuum chamber on the planet Venus by drug-addled baboons. He was also prone to making veiled innuendoes these last three-four years or so that he wanted to somehow merge Knoxville.com and MP, or else combine parts of the staffs, or some other damned idiot thing. Last year, after MP had just finished turning a fairly reasonable profit, he rewarded the staff by threatening to break the paper's lease at 602 S. Gay Street and move the entire operation into the Sentinel building, thus destroying any hope for maintaining editorial independence.

"My observation is that Birmingham is the idiot who is most responsible for this atrocity. Metro Pulse was indeed turning a profit (although its projections for the coming year were only break-even, that still means it was a very viable concern in the context of print media. At the very least, it was a property that one should have reasonably been able to shop to another interested party.) The lion's share of blame should be cast at Birmingham's weasel feet."

At last check, over 10,000 Tweets agree.

And the new-ish blog YouAreNotPayingAttention.com has a good perspective too:

"I struggle to find a comparison between a publication that has been with Knoxville for over 20 years and an absolutely horrid excuse for journalism that has nothing to do with its namesake. Perhaps it would be in the interest of those operating the Knoxville.com Facebook to consider posts about Knoxville and those who make up its populace before posts wishing Usher a happy birthday. In a land of steak, Scripps took away all knives and forks but assures us that the spoons provided should be able to handle our eating needs.

This is more than “just an arts and culture paper”. Be it out of lack of knowledge or lack of concern, Scripps (and the KNS by proxy) are responsible for a magnitude of damage to Knoxville. Small niche businesses are impacted because their demographic is not the KNS. Local non-commercial stations like WUTK are impacted as one of the station’s tags, “Winner of the Metro Pulse ‘Best of Knoxville’ award (x) years in a row” is no longer a relevant statement — not to mention the mountain of cross-promotion that both medias provided one another. I fail to have even the slightest trust in the culinary opinions of a media outlet that has covered everything /but/ Metro Pulse today. Your parent publication created this issue — have a sense of ownership. Open a dialog. That’s what social media is for versus “McDonalds invites icky questions about its food”.

The real sad thing is that the Scripps Co., owners of the KNS, are clueless as to what to do with a newspaper so they are abandoning the ones they own and are trying to get into tv or radio or ... something:

"The E.W. Scripps Co. will say goodbye to newspapers, including the Knoxville News Sentinel and the Memphis Commercial Appeal, and hello to radio in a merger and spinoff transaction with the parent company of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper."

Farewell news of Knoxville. Those of us who live in East TN and write about it all on our on will soldier on.

Changing Your Outraged Brain

I'm seldom a fan of the material found in Psychology Today magazine. But I noted an article this week about words and the physical effects words have on our brains and bodies.

Negative words flood the brain and body with chemicals and emotions and studies indicate the brain and body react to one negative word while a positive word has to be repeated to create similar impacts.

There are recent discussions about the apparent rise in what's being called the "Outrage Industry", as daily and hourly we see and hear stories and events which are meant to evoke powerful emotions. Some might say the public is addicted to outrage.

Way back in the mid-90s, I knew a fellow who listened every day to 6 or 7 hours of angry radio rantings from Boortz and Limbaugh and others. Day after day after day, he became sullen and angry and just plain mean. For him the world was an Us versus Them place locked in a holy war. I found it quite sad to watch him devolve into a hating machine. He became physically ill, and nearly died.

The article noted above indicates that while our brains react immediately to negative words to combat danger. A positive word, a Yes, does not do that. One researcher says a person needs 3 or 5 Yeses to equal the effects of one No.

It's very easy to drown in the oceans of outrage, some folks constantly bellow about The End of Everything.

And while negative commentary on our shared worlds can be found in abundance in the posts here on my blog, I've tried to balance that with the positive or humorous or even the silly.

So what follows is nothing less than an effort to add to the positive. Read the list of words below. You can even say them out loud and effect even more powerful change, and if others hear you, that change will spread. You can repeat this act every day too. Ready?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Freedom Lost: Life In Top Secret America

For more than a decade now, too many lives and too many freedoms have been lost in a battle against terrorism. Policies and strategies created in the frenzied and angry months which followed the attacks on 9-11 chase after an elusive sense of security, transforming our world.

The nature of this astonishing transformation was at the heart of a recent discussion between Bill Moyers and Glenn Greenwald via Moyers' show on PBS:

"GLENN GREENWALD: There is a Washington Post series in 2010 called Top Secret America, three-part series by Dana Priest and William Arkin. And one of the facts that reported was that the National Security Agency, every day, collects and stores 1.7 billion, that's with a B, billion, emails, telephone calls, and other form of electronic communications by and between American citizens.

And what's amazing is, is that if you look at the case in Boston, the surveillance state, this massive apparatus of monitoring and storing information about us that we've constructed over the last decade that's extremely expensive and invasive really didn't do much. It didn't detect the attack before it started. The attempted Times Square attack in 2010 wasn't stopped because of eavesdropping or government surveillance but because a hot dog vendor noticed something amiss with the bomb that had been left.

So again, the surveillance state doesn't really do much in terms of giving us lots of security. But what it does do, is it destroys the notion of privacy, which is the area in which human creativity and dissent and challenges to orthodoxy all reside. The way things are supposed to work is we're supposed to know everything that the government does with rare exception, that's why they're called the public sector.

And they're supposed to know almost nothing about us, which is why we're private individuals, unless there's evidence that we've committed a crime. This has been completely reversed, so that we know almost nothing about what the government does.

It operates behind this impenetrable wall of secrecy, while they know everything about what it is we're doing, with whom we're speaking and communicating, what we're reading. And this imbalance, this reversal of transparency and secrecy and the way things are supposed to work, has really altered the relationship between the citizenry and the government in very profound ways.

BILL MOYERS: Is it conceivable to you that-- that giving up our privacy and even much of our liberty becomes a way of life in exchange, a trade for security? Tom Brokaw suggested as much the other day. Here he is.

TOM BROKAW on NBC News: Everyone has to understand tonight however that beginning tomorrow morning, early, there are going to be much tougher security considerations all across the country. However exhausted we may be by them, we're going to have to learn to live with them and get along and go forward and not let them bring us to our knees. You'll remember last summer how unhappy we were with all the security at the Democratic and Republican convention. Now I don't think that we could raise those complaints after what happened today in Boston.

GLENN GREENWALD: I mean, I think that is, first of all, it's extraordinary that journalists lead the way in encouraging people to accept greater government intrusion into their lives. The media, journalists, are supposed to be adversarial to the government, not encouraging people to submit to greater government authority.

But I think the broader point is that it's that false dichotomy, that the more the government learns about us, the safer we'll be. In part because what history shows is that when governments are able to surveil people in the dark, generally the greatest outcome is that they abuse that power and it becomes tyrannical. If you talk to anybody who came from Eastern Europe, they'll tell you that the reason we left is because society's become deadened and soulless, when citizens have no privacy. And it's a difficult concept to understand, why privacy is so crucial, but people understand it instinctively. They put locks on their bedroom doors, not for security, but for privacy."

Fake Girlfriend, Media FAIL, Football and Being 'Catfished'

Moving at Internet speed yesterday, the Sports website Deadspin revealed Notre Dame's football hero Manti Te'o did not actually have a girlfriend whose romance and sudden death made international news.

The in-depth and riveting story on Deadspin prompted the college, Te'o and the nation's into a scramble of explanations.

The fact is every media outlet failed to confirm the stories they sold as inspirational - the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, ESPN, CBS, and many more all got caught short.

The "Catfish" phenomena is growing.

The Lost: Aboard a Conservative Cruise Ship

It's so easy to highlight the ridiculous and delusional when one takes a cruise ship adventure with a boatload of Conservatives just days after the 2012 Election - one writer joined a National Review-sponsored cruise and the report is a metaphorical descent into a malestrom.

"Hassett pivoted to the liberal media. “I actually think that Goebbels was more critical of Hitler than the New York Times is of Obama,” said Hassett, tucking into a piece of strudel. “I was in the middle of the fight against the propaganda, and I have stories like you wouldn’t believe. These people are so evil. They’re basically Fascists. It’s unbelievable.” 

---

"Rob Long, a conservative Hollywood TV writer behind a TNT show called ­Sullivan & Son, said the party has to accept that it’s been living in a fantasy world. “It’s like The Matrix,” he said. “You can continue to live in the dream world, or you can take the pill and we can unplug you and you can see that things are actually kind of bad.”

---

"John Yoo, the former Bush Administration lawyer who helped formulate its theory on torture ... worried that the Republicans were too quick to blame each other, saying, “This is all out of Lord of the Flies and Karl Rove is Piggy and we’re supposed to all chase him around with spikes and throw him on a fire?”

Camera Obscura: Infinite Vampire Twilight ShlockFest Extravaganza and Emporium

Worldwide vampire obsessiveness weekend is upon us - suitable fare for a Black Friday Shopping Weekend During The Economic Collapse.

The finale of the Twilight series movie "Breaking Dawn Part 2" has emerged as such an enormous cornucopia of Weird that I had to make a special post about it. (Truth be told, I did a search of my blog for use of the word vampire and it came in at more than 30 posts, which means vampires have easily been 10% of this blog's entire output, which include these two of my own personal faves, A) Hot Vampy Sex Talk from the first movie and B) the Sarah Palin-Twilight Convergence)

Understand too, I am a deep-dyed fan of Bad Movies and Cinema Shlock and have forced many a friend to endure Something Awful. Big Budget Awful really stinks up the place, though. I recently watched the movie "John Carter" and it is merely Done Badly, whereas say, "Anonymous" was Stunningly Awful and made me Pity The Actors, and answered the question "What happens when the folks who made the alien-invasion 'Independence Day' investigate the world of William Shakespeare?"

But vampires? Hell, even I have written and produced my own vampire play, but it's sheer genius compared to the bizarre path the bloodsucking genre has taken in movies and TV. Example - this year we've had Abe Lincoln hunting vamps, while on Hulu the Korean TV series "Vampire Prosecutor" is gaining fame and I'm still searching for a copy of the short film "Davy Crockett Battles Kung Fu Vampires".

The hilarity of reviews are MUST reading, no matter what you might think of the movies/books/adoration/obsession. Some samples:

The Confused Notes Of A Twilight Newbie Forced to Watch Breaking Dawn Part 2:

"Is his face always like that? It's like he washed it with a powdered doughnut.

"Eww, now I get imprinting. He made that vampire baby the love of his werewolf life. Or something. It's kinda gross — definitely weird. And even more disturbing that those teenage girls found it so funny.

"T-Laut nicknames Renesmee "Nessie." K-Stew angrily shouts, "You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster." Is the Loch Ness Monster real in this world or was K-Stew making a joke? If the latter, why would Nessie be a laughable idea, while talking wolves are serious business?

"Vampires seem to not be affected by the weather, so why do they wear jackets and turtlenecks?"

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 is Completely Insane and Actually Worth Watching. Seriously

The Final Twilight Movie Is Like A Porn Film With Action Figures:

"It turns out that many vampires have X-men-esque superpowers on top of their default vampire superpowers. We already knew Alice could see the future, and some of the Volturi could read minds and create mental anguish, but now we find out that there are airbender vampires and electricity-shooting vampires and omega mutant vampires who can go all Dark Phoenix on your ass.

"The point is, there is a fight scene. A long, improbable, laugh-out-loud at the abysmal special effects fight scene, in which we discover that you can kill a vampire exactly the same way you kill an action figure. Just pop off its head! Boink! It comes off with no blood! Just a kind of SNAP just like plastic. Even if you never go to the theater to see this movie, I urge you to rent it at some point just to fast-forward to the fight scene so that you can see the weirdest thing ever."

Occupy: Sparkle

"It began when I read the first two books on my honeymoon in December 2008. My new wife and I listened to Twilight and New Moon on a road trip. We saw the first movie when we returned home, and a few months later we were divorced. I'm not saying Twilight killed my marriage, per se. I am saying there is a strong correlation between consuming Twilight content and no longer being happily married."

 Even The Actors In Twilight Hate Twilight

I have to say that I'll likely see this "finale" one day, but try as this current generation might, all this Vampire MashUp has been around for a long time. Even the old Hammer Horror folks stirred it all up in the early 1970s with the movie "Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires" which marks the arrival of the trope All Vampires Know Karate Because Dracula Did. (See the trailer for the movie here which has some NSFW images)

Indie film director superstar Jim Jarmusch is at work on his take on vampires in a movie set for next year, "Only Lovers Left Alive", starring Tilda Swinton, so even though vamps are being squicked out of all decency the darned things JUST NEVER DIE.

That's quite charming.

Romney Family Owns Voting Machines

Even as I enjoy all the spooky and frightening aspects of the Halloween holiday, the notion that a presidential candidate and family own voting machines is truly a chilling thought. Via a corporation headed by Mitt Romney's son Tagg, the company has successfully purchased the voting machines being used this November in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma and Washington.

"Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.

In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House."

Just as I was reading and learning about this disturbing reality, over at KnoxViews, writer djuggler poses a question worth answering:

"Why is the purchase of the Ohio voting machines by Tagg Romney 1) legal and 2) not all over the news?"

If anyone remotely related to President Obama's family owned voting machines, FOX "News" would be relentlessly howling and screeching. And why aren't major media outlets covering the fact that Romney's family does own voting machines? FOX talkers gleefully accused the Obama administration of "cooking the numbers" so that unemployment rate numbers showed a drop - so surely they'd gleefully report that a presidential candidate's family owns voting machines, right? Unless, of course, the candidate is Mitt Romney.

Butting In or Butting Out?

As a public service, let me offer a very simple and basic rule from the Guide to Living a Good Life - Rule Number 25: Never, ever place yourself in a situation where you have to deny you participated in something called "butt-chugging" or "alcohol enema".

This press conference by the UT student, his attorney and an army of silent frat brothers, is a grim comedy of horrors.

The press release here notes the events of this case are similar to those in "The Wizard of Oz" but never says just how it is similar. I personally do not recall any consumption of booze via any orifice in that story, though the character who laments "if I only had a brain" does seem most appropriate.

Twittering and Pinteresting Political Power

Tracking and counting political tweets and Facebook 'likes' are now a part of American politics - perhaps in much the same way that a teenager might observe and evaluate their popularity.

Yes, there is now a daily Twitter Political Index.

And there's high-profile use this year of political parties on Tumblr, Pinterest and Instagram.

Campaign strategists eyed the tweet-count for the Republican convention (Paul Ryan peaked at 6,000 tweets per minute, Romney had 14,300) and easily put their texting prowess to work - President Obama had 52,000 tweets per minute during his speech.

The singer Madonna, however, racked up 10,000 tweets per second during her Super Bowl halftime performance. (stat counts via here and here) But does any of this translate to actual votes?

The Pew Research folks compiled a study earlier this year on how Democrats, Republicans and Independent voters rated "social media" as a political tool. Some of the results:

"Some but not most users of social networking sites (SNS) say the sites are important for a variety of political activities:

• 36% of SNS users say the sites are “very important” or “somewhat important” to them in keeping up with political news.
• 26% of SNS users say the sites are “very important” or “somewhat important” to them in recruiting people to get involved in political issues that matter to them.
• 25% of SNS users say the sites are “very important” or “somewhat important” to them for debating or discussing political issues with others.
• 25% of SNS users say the sites are “very important” or “somewhat important” to them in finding other people who share their views about important political issues.

In each activity, Democrats who use social networking sites are more likely than Republicans or independents to say the sites are important."

Click to enlarge

Being talked about seems to be the goal, with the hope then that talk translate into votes. As an organizing tool, it would seem to be quite valuable and it also seems that Democrats use it best. If it leads to votes, however, is still the real question.

Or is all the twittering, pinteresting, facebooking merely a modern version of capturing hearts and minds?

Gov. Haslam's FAIL in Leadership

Gov. Haslam has a strategy to dodge his lack of leadership - "blame the media".

R. Neal at KnoxViews calls him out:

"Gov. Haslam is not happy with all the media attention on what he calls "crazy" legislation, and wishes they would focus on more important and positive things such as education reform.

If he thinks the legislation is "crazy" why does he keep signing it? He can veto it and make them get on board the crazy train twice. And it would send them a message. As it is, he only encourages them to continue embarrassing our state.

The media is just doing its job, part of which is reporting on state government. If the governor doesn't like the coverage, he should be a leader and encourage better legislation. 

In fact, he should probably be happy that his education "reforms," which are actually the first step in dismantling public education, aren't getting more press. People might wise up. Instead, the media is helping Haslam advance his radical GOP agenda by distracting the public from the more serious damage being done.

Fact check: "We're redefining accountability, and you'd be hard-pressed to find 100 lines of print in any paper of the state," Haslam said. "Now, today in the Legislature there's a conversation about saggy pants and what they should do there." Seriously? In just the last month the KNS alone had approx. 15 articles about teacher evaluations, and only five about "saggy pants." 

A google search for articles about Tennessee teacher evaluations yields hundreds of articles across the state and nationally (including the NYT). Not all of them are supportive, so maybe that's his real problem."

Newscoma calls him out too:

"Now we know that this is what we are dealing with during his time in the governor’s mansion and that we will be the laughing stock of national media. Instead of leading with some common sense, we are told “Blame the Media.”

It doesn’t have to be this way.

I honestly don’t think Haslam is a bad man but he also appears not to have a set of keys to the asylum where there is more talk of sex and perceived debauchery than I’ve ever heard. He is the governor. Leaders just lead.

I would love to see our legislators go out and meet the millions of kind Tennesseans who are just trying to do a hard day’s work and get home to their families. This legislative body appears to think the worst of us at all times. That we are all just a bad lot of people.

We aren’t.

Legacies are important and what I’m seeing is that the legacy of this particular session of the General Assembly will be about treating average Tennesseans with a lack of respect.

Haslam, you do have choices. Quit blaming and start leading because that’s what the people in this state deserve. It’s not hard."

I've called on him to muster some even small amount of courage and lead, rather than use the Blamethrower as his Policy of Non-Leadership.

It's all on you, sir. What will you do?

We The Peeple

 Peep raid on Bin Laden Hideout, image courtesy Washington Post

 A sure sign of a society of immense luxury - a society which creates a huge range of dioramas on political/social themes using the wee marshmellow candies known as Peeps.

The annual Washington Post contest includes RePeeplican Debates and OccuPeep protesters.

Truth: Fictional and Factual

There are several powerful lessons to be learned from the recent retraction of a story reported on the radio program This American Life about working conditions for thousands of electronics workers in China (mentioned here and here).

TAL's report (their most-downloaded story) was based largely on the one-man-show presented theatrically by Mike Daisey, a well-known theatrical writer-actor-producer. Once other reporters began digging into the claims from TAL's story, they found Daisey had "fabricated" information, which so angered and disturbed Ira Glass of TAL that he issued a full retraction of the story, telling listeners he felt he had been lied to, that the report should have never aired.

Daisey admits to creating a "truthful" stage production, Glass says the standards of journalism demand more than "truthiness", that journalism demands a different standard, and he's right about that. However, in challenging Daisey, Glass said he felt Daisey's shows should bear a disclaimer or warning that the show may not be 100% fact.

Ira Glass: I know but I feel like I have the normal worldview. The normal worldview is somebody stands on stage and says ‘this happened to me,’ I think it happened to them, unless it’s clearly labeled as ‘here’s a work of fiction.’

Full transcript is here.

I must challenge that perspective - if a reporter decides a one-man theatrical show demands attention for it's powerful claims and evocations, then it seems clear to me the reporter has the obligation to report on the show as just that, a "show". For thousands of years, writers and performers have forcefully confronted many real-life issues in the guise of fiction, and most all of us know that watching a "show" and reporting are two different forms of communication.

"This American Life", certainly a news show, is made using very dramatic styles and breaks and revelations. That's one of the program's strengths, compelling stories. Daisey's works had previously been hailed as masterfully blurring the lines between fact and fiction - and perhaps that is the real issue which, however clumsily, Ira Glass and "This American Life" is trying to highlight.

It's one thing for Glass to admit he was "fooled" by Daisey's story - but to demand Daisey re-package his show to suit journalistic standards is mistaken. And Daisey was wrong to let journalists report on his show as factual. And certainly, further reports on conditions in these Chinese factories have shown some brutal conditions.

And yet ...

How often do major news outlets - especially television - rely on metaphorical, if not utterly faked, emotions to drive a story? Hours are filled with "opinion" and not "fact", because the passion of opinion will always attract an audience.

If Daisey's work must be clearly "labeled", then so should so-called "news" programs be properly labeled as well -- "This hour of program features opinions about facts, and therefore is not 100% factual."

That won't happen - criticizing writers for creating passionate fictions is too easy. Criticizing journalists/panelists/experts/producers for creating passionate fictions is big business, from "reality" programs to "news" programs. And they see themselves as "too big to fail" or "too big to be criticized".

Much cable news - and especially radio programming like Rush Limbaugh - are dramatic creations, carefully designed to elicit an emotional response, all falling under the sway of attracting an audience.

And it is precisely those creators and writers and performers of "news" who should label their creations for audiences.

Foxconn Update: Report Retracted by This American Life

In January of this year, I ran a post about conflicting reports on working conditions in Chinese factories where Apple (and many other major electronic companies) make their products.

One of the sources I cited in that post was from the radio show This American Life, which today announced they have learned much of their report had been fabricated and as a result, they have retracted the entire episode.

“Daisey lied to me and to This American Life producer Brian Reed during the fact checking we did on the story, before it was broadcast,” the show’s host, Ira Glass, wrote in a blog post on Friday. “That doesn’t excuse the fact that we never should’ve put this on the air. In the end, this was our mistake.”

Unwired: The Final Installment of a Non-LiveBlog

This is the Third and final part of an experiment I made to live and work offline and write about my results via a sort of non LiveBlog.  (Part two is here.)

The final installment is below, and I must say that - unsurprisingly - the overall results are deeply boring and uninteresting to most everyone. The life of a writer is a fairly boring thing. I tend to work all alone, though I have often collaborated with a few folks. But mostly my time would be akin to watching paint dry. Thinking, scratching out notes and ideas, re-writing and re-writing again are dull events to observe. It's a far, far more exciting time within my brain of course, an electric-synaptic-orgy of thoughts and actions.

I wondered if my creation and eventual publication of a life lived offline would draw in readers. It has not. Not only am I a solo writer, I am a solo human - never been married, no girlfriend currently, so no spousal/near-spousal dramas or comedies to share; no children to tote from one life-affirming event to another; no financial chicanery or wizardry to recount; no daring recipes of dazzling foods to share (though I often do make a fine and tasty dish, plus there's always a fine cup of coffee close by); and as a solo writer, while I do have so many fascinating and intelligent friends, I don't always share such conversations here on this blog, though I often write about the results of my thoughts after such conversations.

Me

I do act, write, direct and produce several stage shows thru the year - and all those I shamelessly do self-promote here. And since a few (very few) have asked, this post includes a fairly recent picture of my very handsome, lovable self.

But I shall add today to this blog the final entry of my Three Part account of my Offline Experiment. Because, as any writer does, I hope what I write does get read. But in all honesty, the writing and the publishing tend to be most important to one lone person: Me.

Should you read, enjoy and share all 3 parts, dear reader, I thank you greatly. Now on with the show!!

PART 3

DAY EIGHT (continued)

11:38 a.m.

All the presentations of status, actions, events, stats, tweets, posts, results both googled and binged, all texting, messaging, and all the jabs of communication short and long … online I am aware these things will reach an audience of readers, whether one or ten or one thousand. Absent the Web, I’m back to the Old Ways of the Writer – what I’m saying and writing may never be seen by anyone.

So the basic foundation of writing is as it ever was: who is the writer writing for or to? Himself? Future generations which might find the scribbled notebooks (or in this case a reader who decides to search the memory of my lone computer)? The drive to make these sentences has been greatly fueled in the last eight to ten years by the reality that I can publish what I write on a global scale without being a lowly worker for a large or small publishing company, newspaper or any other media owner – I pay for my access to the web, write and publish as I wish, daily, weekly, hourly, and I publish whatever I wish. And I know what I write gets read (according to my stats counter) not only by readers in the U.S., but in Europe, Asia, South America – anywhere the Web exists.

And while it is true that without a publisher my earnings from my writing is limited, there still exists a large opportunity that a sizable paycheck will arrive in the future – a matter of my efforts to promote it, or perhaps someone else who decides to share it, or my skill or luck at saying something which snags the world’s imagination and wallets.

11:56 a.m.
Boop-bedoop-bah-bah … grrrrrrr.


8:20 p.m.

Televised coverage of the celeb arrivals for Oscars’ red carpet is deeply dull. Essentially, the actors and performers all parade past a crowd of mostly publicists, herded like cattle, yet politely, but the celebs seem to have little of note to say or do, aside from wearing clothes and jewelry. So few improve skills are displayed – even being interesting seems to escape them … though is the problem instead that today’s celebs don’t like this parade, even resent it?

9:15 p.m.

Producer Brian Grazer … how old is he, 60? Crazy scientist/spiky 1980’s pop star/anime hair looks odd on old people.

10:00 p.m.

Cirque du Soleil performs a showcase of … well, what was their show about? As the cast swings around the theater I keep thinking about how the producers of the Spiderman show on Broadway should have used them. I still think the backstage is the place to be these days.

So sad that Crystal doesn’t have Jack Nicholson to make jokes about this time around. He does Clooney jokes instead … but the mirth is oddly muffled.

11:30 p.m.

Let’s see – a French silent film comedy filmed in L.A., Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher, Woody Allen’s script, black actresses playing maids in the 1960s, a song by the Muppets, and efx/tech awards heaped upon Martin Scorcese … the show tonite seemed steeped in nostalgia.


DAY NINE

8:00 a.m.

I’m cranky and unhappy without the ability to seek and read news from the wide range of sources via the Web. There’s such a superficial gloss, an total lack of critical thinking and a loving embrace of the spin from PR men and women on television.

9:00 a.m.

This offline experiment is a drag so I am ending it. However, I will extend it through today so that I might prepare some closing remarks … which hopefully will contain some kind of notable conclusion. Hopefully. Right now, I’m lacking any wisdom here, other than I am suffering a debilitating addiction to the internet. Does that make me pitiable or do I have merely a ‘first world problem’?

I’ve cleared more than a week without it, approaching 10 days. What time period is needed to truly flush my system of digital cyber-toxins? A month? A year? Or is it like alcohol or drug addiction – meaning I am forever an addict forced to live one day at a time with the constant threat that the addiction will return with even the slightest usage, just one email is all it would take and boom! I’m over the edge of the abyss.

How long could you go without the online world, dear reader? An hour? A day? Do you dare even attempt it?

1:00 p.m.

Grim hours ahead as I cling to my experiment in spite of a raging urge to go online …

Perhaps what has been absent is more than just my ability to amuse, entertain or even educate myself via the Web … perhaps the removal of access is also the removal of my one constant avenue of self-expression in our modern world. No access means no voice for me about the world I inhabit? That’s a chilling thought …

DAY ELEVEN

I'm going back online tomorrow .... what have I learned, if anything, trying this offline experiment? That, dear reader, is a question I will have to ponder .... and yet I wonder most -- how long could you go with no online access??

Would You Buy A Used Car From This Man?

Rush Limbaugh has been selling and slinging horseshit for decades, called it 'reasonable thinking', 'entertainment' and now calls his work "absurdity".

He's getting closer to reality with that latest comment. As this editorial notes, "Limbaugh puts the vile in juvenile".

Bottom line: unless you are a rich white male who hates our nation's rich heritage of diversity and vision -- Rush hates you too.

So sad that so many local radio stations support his every word, and they have backed his every word for decades. Shame on those radio stations.

via the LA Times