The Internet holds the potential to serve as a forum for a dynamic mix of well-supported point of views from all over the spectrum of politics, academics, or any area involving intellectual perspectives. The problem is that people seem to make a habit out of seeking articles and blogs written in a point of view with which they already agree. Extremely "liberal" environmentalists will gravitate towards environmentally focused blogs written in liberal point of views, "conservatives" will gravitate towards conservative articles and forums, and so on, much like how an avid technology fan might follow up on blogs covering the latest techs. Sure, it's not what they read exclusively, but it comprises the bulk of their consumption. When this starts occurring, readers will be encouraged to stubbornly back their own take on matters by seeking out those with identical opinions, and enter every discussion closed-minded with their minds made up beforehand. This is no way to develop informed assessments of any subject.
Last semester, I took an introductory public policy course where we were discouraged from formulating policy proposals phrased with a personally preferred solution decided beforehand. All the alternatives had to be seriously explored and considered before arriving at a recommendation of a policy approach. It may sound like obvious common sense, but we often find ourselves falling into that trap.
There was a recently linked article linked on a high-profile technology enthusiast blog, noting that Microsoft was researching and developing a news aggregator that would attempt to sort articles by political bias. While this is technologically interesting, it poses the risk of furthering the polarization in the political and intellectual sphere, and strengthening the mentality of shutting out the voice of the "other side", whatever that may be.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Monday, November 26, 2007
Whether Bomb or No Bomb: How America Is Cornering Iran To Develop Nuclear Arms
Ask the average citizen in this country to highlight any major difference between Iran and Iraq, and I can bet you my lunch money most people will stumble. The current Presidential administration has thrown around descriptions of a possible preemptive military strike on Iran with words with like “World War III” and “bombing them back five years”, and the American public, half a decade into a war with Iraq, can at best only differentiate Iraq and Iran on the level of MadTV puns on iRack, iRan, and iPod products. With the mission of Iraq still underway, assuming that mission is now democratization rather than the original weapons of mass destruction case, the people of America risk growing numb to the idea of the second blatant preemptive attack on a foreign country in our lifetimes.
This is a stark contrast to all the uproar over the unprecedented preemptive character of the proposed Iraq war nearly five years ago, almost as though preemptive wars are as so totally five years ago as Friendster or Pepsi Blue, and subsequently no longer worth the media attention. As a whole, the population then dangerously underestimates the gravity of the situation with Iran and talks of bombing. After all, one of the current justifications behind the invasion of Iraq was the need for “regime change” and the need to oust a leader who they felt had carried out atrocities against his own nation. In the months of United Nations inspections leading up to the American ultimatum on Iraq, the United States initiated heavy discussion over Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, including over his defiance and alleged lack of compliance and cooperation with weapons inspections. Recently, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name grabs the headlines, often with the Western nations complaining about his general lack of cooperation with the United Nations’ demands that he cease alleged higher-level uranium enrichment for developing nuclear weapons. Note the parallel trend.
While Ahmadinejad does not share Saddam Hussein’s history of chemical gas attacks against his own civilian population (the Kurds), the American populace on average is known for its weak grasp on history, and can easily confuse and group the two as one and the same, just as some still group Iraq and 9/11 as intertwined cause and effect. Perception of the situation is the method upon which much of the nation deals with the complexity of global affairs, and the U.S. Presidential administration essentially sold the Iraq war to Americans with the simplicity of stirring this perception – ‘Iraq will attack us with anthrax, nerve gas, and anything else from their chemical arsenal, and we must act first’. It instills fear in the people, and what could be more fearsome than chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons.
The hawks in Washington are beating their war drums, suggesting an imminent doomsday if America does not act soon, lest we do not mind starting World War III. They toss around comparisons to Hitler, seeing that the era is one of the few frightening bits of history to which the average American can relate, even though neither Saddam Hussein nor Ahmadinejad stand at the same level. Yet we have top Guiliani adviser Norman Podhoretz urging bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible”, and our future Presidential candidate hopefuls like Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton sniping at each other on being too soft on Iran for the sake of appearing strong on national security issues.
Never mind if the world nations cannot assert with evidence that there really are nuclear weapons. We were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we cannot afford to be carelessly led into another nation with such assertions. Yet even if they did possess them, how would that be justification for carpet bombing nuclear facilities? We do not see Iran desiring to bomb France or India for having attained the capability of using the bomb. The U.S. holds Iran to a double standard, and the American public idly watches its leaders set those foreign policies. I would dread another nuclear bomb nation to the count as much as the next person, but with American soldiers occupying countries on two sides of its borders – Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as two aircraft carriers and a dozen warships in the Gulf, it becomes more plausible to assume Iran feels pressured to defend itself any way it can. And while there is a fair share of reluctance already among the American citizens to proceed with another war, the public sitting around uninvolved and desensitized to these kinds of preemptive wars is not going do much to derail those in Washington placing Iran in their crosshairs, believing they are helping America.
Whether the atomic ambitions are true or not, the United States is only going to work this out with Iran not by spearing threats to solely protect self interests, but by understanding their perspective and interests as a growing nation wrestling itself from its past of American influence, and it is us the American people who can involve ourselves to help our leaders back onto a path that truly benefits America.
This is a stark contrast to all the uproar over the unprecedented preemptive character of the proposed Iraq war nearly five years ago, almost as though preemptive wars are as so totally five years ago as Friendster or Pepsi Blue, and subsequently no longer worth the media attention. As a whole, the population then dangerously underestimates the gravity of the situation with Iran and talks of bombing. After all, one of the current justifications behind the invasion of Iraq was the need for “regime change” and the need to oust a leader who they felt had carried out atrocities against his own nation. In the months of United Nations inspections leading up to the American ultimatum on Iraq, the United States initiated heavy discussion over Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, including over his defiance and alleged lack of compliance and cooperation with weapons inspections. Recently, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name grabs the headlines, often with the Western nations complaining about his general lack of cooperation with the United Nations’ demands that he cease alleged higher-level uranium enrichment for developing nuclear weapons. Note the parallel trend.
While Ahmadinejad does not share Saddam Hussein’s history of chemical gas attacks against his own civilian population (the Kurds), the American populace on average is known for its weak grasp on history, and can easily confuse and group the two as one and the same, just as some still group Iraq and 9/11 as intertwined cause and effect. Perception of the situation is the method upon which much of the nation deals with the complexity of global affairs, and the U.S. Presidential administration essentially sold the Iraq war to Americans with the simplicity of stirring this perception – ‘Iraq will attack us with anthrax, nerve gas, and anything else from their chemical arsenal, and we must act first’. It instills fear in the people, and what could be more fearsome than chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons.
The hawks in Washington are beating their war drums, suggesting an imminent doomsday if America does not act soon, lest we do not mind starting World War III. They toss around comparisons to Hitler, seeing that the era is one of the few frightening bits of history to which the average American can relate, even though neither Saddam Hussein nor Ahmadinejad stand at the same level. Yet we have top Guiliani adviser Norman Podhoretz urging bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible”, and our future Presidential candidate hopefuls like Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton sniping at each other on being too soft on Iran for the sake of appearing strong on national security issues.
Never mind if the world nations cannot assert with evidence that there really are nuclear weapons. We were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we cannot afford to be carelessly led into another nation with such assertions. Yet even if they did possess them, how would that be justification for carpet bombing nuclear facilities? We do not see Iran desiring to bomb France or India for having attained the capability of using the bomb. The U.S. holds Iran to a double standard, and the American public idly watches its leaders set those foreign policies. I would dread another nuclear bomb nation to the count as much as the next person, but with American soldiers occupying countries on two sides of its borders – Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as two aircraft carriers and a dozen warships in the Gulf, it becomes more plausible to assume Iran feels pressured to defend itself any way it can. And while there is a fair share of reluctance already among the American citizens to proceed with another war, the public sitting around uninvolved and desensitized to these kinds of preemptive wars is not going do much to derail those in Washington placing Iran in their crosshairs, believing they are helping America.
Whether the atomic ambitions are true or not, the United States is only going to work this out with Iran not by spearing threats to solely protect self interests, but by understanding their perspective and interests as a growing nation wrestling itself from its past of American influence, and it is us the American people who can involve ourselves to help our leaders back onto a path that truly benefits America.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Addicted to Race
I know it's been a little while since the last post, but I've sort of been unsure as to how to go about this (still!). Still, little things have been collecting in my head, so I figure, better to write something than nothing.
There's a podcast that I listen to at work called Addicted to Race. It was started by Jen Chau and Carmen Van Kerckhove sometime in 2004 (I think?), two bloggers and founders of the NY-based firm New Demographic. Addicted to Race is a weekly podcast dedicated to "exploring America's obsession with race" -- discussing media, pop culture, current events, literary works - basically whatever's current and relevant to race issues. Jen Chau left a little while ago, but Carmen is still hosting the podcast weekly with revolving guest hosts, usually activists or authors.
What I like about Addicted to Race is their focus on mixed-race issues --- I've taken my fair share of ethnic studies courses and attended activist groups, but most of the time hapa issues or any mixed identity discussion is pretty marginalized. I'll admit my own prejudices - most of the time I never really considered hapas (part Asians, for those of you not hip to the lingo) *that much* of a part of the Asian American community -- I tended to scorn them (especially half white half Asians) as trying to reconcile white privilege by embracing their "ethnic" sides. And honestly, I think a lot of others think this way about a lot of mixed race people too -- everyone's always all up on Mariah Carey's case for "acting black" or fighting about Barack Obama's blackness, etc. But Addicted to Race lays out the facts pretty plainly - gripes about people always asking, "what are you?", fetishizing mixed people (since the stereotype goes, they're supposed to be super hot), being out with a parent and being stared at, the way people treat you differently if they discover you're in an interracial relationship, the portrayal of the "tragic mulatto" in movies. I think for the most part, mixed people don't have much of a voice in mainstream society to express any mixed identity --- most of them get lumped into one category or another --- and the mixed people that I do know tend to not be very vocal about these issues either. I think my perspective has been broadened just a little bit in that regard.
What I don't like about Addicted to Race is sort of the same gripe I've always had with most of the ethnic studies courses or activist groups I've gone to. Everyone agrees on all the same things. In the early episodes when both Carmen and Jen hosted, they always had the same opinions --- there was plenty of discussion, insightful analysis, but usually no real debate. Usually, the one segment where there is real disagreement and explanation of views is during their "listener feedback" sessions, which take up about 5 minutes at the beginning of the podcasts (and sometimes whole episodes!). I really have to applaud Addicted to Race for really taking the time to read their listener feedback and respond to it on-air; most podcasts or radio shows probably would just ignore them or respond pretty haphazardly. But I find that any time there's some listener feedback that calls the hosts out on something they said, or criticizes some analysis, both hosts shut them down again. Obviously, it's their show and they have the last word, but there is legitimacy to these criticisms -- any criticisms.
I know race is a touchy subject for everyone, but I feel like there's a very hegemonic environment going on within this little podcast microcosm of Addicted to Race --- if you're not tapped into it, you leave yourself open to being attacked and shut down. There are racial minorities who feel differently than what the hosts and guests on Addicted to Race say. A lot that don't get offended by many of the same things, or who have conservative views. But a lot of them who do choose to speak out on the podcast, or even other activist-y venues tend to be pegged as self-loathing or uneducated. After all though, isn't the point of these outlets to be a microphone for minorities who don't get a chance to express their views through mainstream means? I think everyone would benefit a lot if there was a real diversity of opinion between minorities to discuss how they feel about issues among themselves. Yes, it's a much broader discussion and yes, it would be hard to maintain focus and have everyone keep their temper. But that's what a community is - diverse.
There's a podcast that I listen to at work called Addicted to Race. It was started by Jen Chau and Carmen Van Kerckhove sometime in 2004 (I think?), two bloggers and founders of the NY-based firm New Demographic. Addicted to Race is a weekly podcast dedicated to "exploring America's obsession with race" -- discussing media, pop culture, current events, literary works - basically whatever's current and relevant to race issues. Jen Chau left a little while ago, but Carmen is still hosting the podcast weekly with revolving guest hosts, usually activists or authors.
What I like about Addicted to Race is their focus on mixed-race issues --- I've taken my fair share of ethnic studies courses and attended activist groups, but most of the time hapa issues or any mixed identity discussion is pretty marginalized. I'll admit my own prejudices - most of the time I never really considered hapas (part Asians, for those of you not hip to the lingo) *that much* of a part of the Asian American community -- I tended to scorn them (especially half white half Asians) as trying to reconcile white privilege by embracing their "ethnic" sides. And honestly, I think a lot of others think this way about a lot of mixed race people too -- everyone's always all up on Mariah Carey's case for "acting black" or fighting about Barack Obama's blackness, etc. But Addicted to Race lays out the facts pretty plainly - gripes about people always asking, "what are you?", fetishizing mixed people (since the stereotype goes, they're supposed to be super hot), being out with a parent and being stared at, the way people treat you differently if they discover you're in an interracial relationship, the portrayal of the "tragic mulatto" in movies. I think for the most part, mixed people don't have much of a voice in mainstream society to express any mixed identity --- most of them get lumped into one category or another --- and the mixed people that I do know tend to not be very vocal about these issues either. I think my perspective has been broadened just a little bit in that regard.
What I don't like about Addicted to Race is sort of the same gripe I've always had with most of the ethnic studies courses or activist groups I've gone to. Everyone agrees on all the same things. In the early episodes when both Carmen and Jen hosted, they always had the same opinions --- there was plenty of discussion, insightful analysis, but usually no real debate. Usually, the one segment where there is real disagreement and explanation of views is during their "listener feedback" sessions, which take up about 5 minutes at the beginning of the podcasts (and sometimes whole episodes!). I really have to applaud Addicted to Race for really taking the time to read their listener feedback and respond to it on-air; most podcasts or radio shows probably would just ignore them or respond pretty haphazardly. But I find that any time there's some listener feedback that calls the hosts out on something they said, or criticizes some analysis, both hosts shut them down again. Obviously, it's their show and they have the last word, but there is legitimacy to these criticisms -- any criticisms.
I know race is a touchy subject for everyone, but I feel like there's a very hegemonic environment going on within this little podcast microcosm of Addicted to Race --- if you're not tapped into it, you leave yourself open to being attacked and shut down. There are racial minorities who feel differently than what the hosts and guests on Addicted to Race say. A lot that don't get offended by many of the same things, or who have conservative views. But a lot of them who do choose to speak out on the podcast, or even other activist-y venues tend to be pegged as self-loathing or uneducated. After all though, isn't the point of these outlets to be a microphone for minorities who don't get a chance to express their views through mainstream means? I think everyone would benefit a lot if there was a real diversity of opinion between minorities to discuss how they feel about issues among themselves. Yes, it's a much broader discussion and yes, it would be hard to maintain focus and have everyone keep their temper. But that's what a community is - diverse.
Friday, October 19, 2007
The sad demise of TVLinks
If it felt like there was any lull in the media business's crackdown on Internet piracy, that myth has sure been shut down today. The Internet currently mourns the death of TVLinks, the popular site linking users to literally hundreds of TV shows, movies, and music videos (and one of my personal favorite websites), which was shut down today, coinciding with raids (!) and the arrest of its 26-year old UK-based owner. (If anyone has any delusions that this is like the last time TVLinks got shut down and simply moved to a different server --- the arrest much kills that dream). All that is left of the majestic site now, http://tv-links.co.uk, is a sad greeting by a "page not found" error message :(
After the 15-minute sob session I had after hearing this news (along with the fond memories of the last shows I watched from the site -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lois and Clark: The New Adve
ntures of Superman -- I warned you I liked trashy TV shows) I started feeling skeptical. Do they really have a case against this guy? The connection between hosting copyrighted material and linking to it is pretty dubious at best. Plus, it makes little sense to me why the authorities chose to go after TVLinks rather than using it as a roadmap to target sites that actually are hosting copyrighted content. Granted, I'm not too keen on all the legal prerequisites for going after sites hosting copyrighted content, but all the same, going after the middleman seems like a pretty shortsighted way of approaching Internet piracy -- it pretty much sends a signal that users need to be more subtle about the way they find and tell each other about free online media. I really feel like most people who were loyal TVLinks fans will grieve for a few minutes, realize they still know where all their shows are being hosted (Stage6, Dailymotion, Toudou, Veoh, YouTube), shrug, and still go about streaming pirated material for free.
On a related note, I'm pretty aware and amused about this nonchalant tone towards Internet piracy in itself -- everyone knows it's illegal, and everyone does it without really thinking t
wice. But Internet piracy in itself brings up the oxymoronic idea of media as a business, or as my Masscomm roots like to call it, "culture as a commodity" -- that there can be a direct clash between the cultural value and usage of media and the business interests that fuel its production, not just in media creation but in media consumption. The whole Internet piracy debate makes this clash painfully blatant.
But whether anyone likes it or not, there's a begrudged but inevitable symbiotic relationship between media and business --- and I know after the whole Napster debate this issue has been hashed out time and time again. But the corporations are in for a big disappointment if they're deluded enough to think that cracking down on sites like TVLinks is going to deter anybody from uploading and downloading shows and movies anymore, and it's also overly idealistic to think that these copyright laws are going to stop being enforced. There have been some budding attempts at creating a happy medium -- buying songs off iTunes started that off, and you can stream CBS shows from the CBS website. Still, there's something about downloading shows and watching pirated stuff that's so....easy.
Still, the battle rages. TVLinks is another casualty in this ongoing war, joining the graves of our old friends Napster and Suprnova (oh man, remember Suprnova?). Rest in peace <3
p.s. okay the pictures in this post might look a little cheesy ---- they're all i could find!
After the 15-minute sob session I had after hearing this news (along with the fond memories of the last shows I watched from the site -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lois and Clark: The New Adve
ntures of Superman -- I warned you I liked trashy TV shows) I started feeling skeptical. Do they really have a case against this guy? The connection between hosting copyrighted material and linking to it is pretty dubious at best. Plus, it makes little sense to me why the authorities chose to go after TVLinks rather than using it as a roadmap to target sites that actually are hosting copyrighted content. Granted, I'm not too keen on all the legal prerequisites for going after sites hosting copyrighted content, but all the same, going after the middleman seems like a pretty shortsighted way of approaching Internet piracy -- it pretty much sends a signal that users need to be more subtle about the way they find and tell each other about free online media. I really feel like most people who were loyal TVLinks fans will grieve for a few minutes, realize they still know where all their shows are being hosted (Stage6, Dailymotion, Toudou, Veoh, YouTube), shrug, and still go about streaming pirated material for free.On a related note, I'm pretty aware and amused about this nonchalant tone towards Internet piracy in itself -- everyone knows it's illegal, and everyone does it without really thinking t
wice. But Internet piracy in itself brings up the oxymoronic idea of media as a business, or as my Masscomm roots like to call it, "culture as a commodity" -- that there can be a direct clash between the cultural value and usage of media and the business interests that fuel its production, not just in media creation but in media consumption. The whole Internet piracy debate makes this clash painfully blatant.But whether anyone likes it or not, there's a begrudged but inevitable symbiotic relationship between media and business --- and I know after the whole Napster debate this issue has been hashed out time and time again. But the corporations are in for a big disappointment if they're deluded enough to think that cracking down on sites like TVLinks is going to deter anybody from uploading and downloading shows and movies anymore, and it's also overly idealistic to think that these copyright laws are going to stop being enforced. There have been some budding attempts at creating a happy medium -- buying songs off iTunes started that off, and you can stream CBS shows from the CBS website. Still, there's something about downloading shows and watching pirated stuff that's so....easy.
Still, the battle rages. TVLinks is another casualty in this ongoing war, joining the graves of our old friends Napster and Suprnova (oh man, remember Suprnova?). Rest in peace <3
p.s. okay the pictures in this post might look a little cheesy ---- they're all i could find!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Gordon says hello
Hi. I'm Gordon, and thoughts on issues, ideas, and life cross my mind everyday. Most of it never makes it to paper or some form of writing, as I frequently find myself without a journal or the time to add to one. Occasionally, I'll sit down and organize my thoughts into something cohesive and articulate enough to be presentable, and these posts have culminated in the scattered entries among my more personal and offbeat posts in the blogs at Xanga and LiveJournal. This place will serve as a place where I can write more about ideas that don't center around myself. I'd say that I'm fairly well-rounded too, but my concentrations will probably begin as topics on aspects of user interfaces and usability, drawn art, various forms of poetry and short stories, foreign countries, and environmental issues affecting our quality of life. I'll be back, and thanks for dropping in.
Bri says hello
First official Churro Friday post!
I thought I'd do sort of an informal intro before I start out blogging around here, and a little more about what this is for. I'm Brianna (hi!). I paired up with Gordon over here to start this blog. I have my own personal blog still hanging around and kicking, but I really felt like I needed a venue to talk about more non-personal-life issues (as opposed to the equally enjoyable but less intellectually stimulating lists about my day at work and the kinds of sandwiches I like to eat). I described this to Gordon as a sort of "intellectual repository" where all my thoughts about issues and current events that pile up in my head can be expressed somehow. (I know that's not really evident in a blog named "Churro Friday," but.....) Plus, Gordon and I have been getting a little tired of Xanga lately (where our personal blogs are hosted) and this seemed like a pretty good way to start afresh.
So what are some of the things I might be talking about here?
Well I have pretty well-rounded interests (I think) but I'm pretty interested in media affairs (especially political censorship and freedom of speech issues), international affairs/human rights, Asian-American issues, film, musicals, literature/poetry, trashy TV shows and even trashier YouTube videos. I'm sure there's more but I can't think of many right now.
It's sort of late and I hardly ever get enough sleep lately so I probably won't start a real post until tomorrow. But in the meantime --- hi! See you soon---
I thought I'd do sort of an informal intro before I start out blogging around here, and a little more about what this is for. I'm Brianna (hi!). I paired up with Gordon over here to start this blog. I have my own personal blog still hanging around and kicking, but I really felt like I needed a venue to talk about more non-personal-life issues (as opposed to the equally enjoyable but less intellectually stimulating lists about my day at work and the kinds of sandwiches I like to eat). I described this to Gordon as a sort of "intellectual repository" where all my thoughts about issues and current events that pile up in my head can be expressed somehow. (I know that's not really evident in a blog named "Churro Friday," but.....) Plus, Gordon and I have been getting a little tired of Xanga lately (where our personal blogs are hosted) and this seemed like a pretty good way to start afresh.
So what are some of the things I might be talking about here?
Well I have pretty well-rounded interests (I think) but I'm pretty interested in media affairs (especially political censorship and freedom of speech issues), international affairs/human rights, Asian-American issues, film, musicals, literature/poetry, trashy TV shows and even trashier YouTube videos. I'm sure there's more but I can't think of many right now.
It's sort of late and I hardly ever get enough sleep lately so I probably won't start a real post until tomorrow. But in the meantime --- hi! See you soon---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)