Since my last post did indeed involve a Nazi, in the interest of informed discourse, I should bring up Godwin's Law, which I have so conveniently ignored for so long, though I should have known it: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
[Though, of course, I would like to claim that my last post did not not involve a gratuitous reference to the National Socialists, for (1) I did not compare anyone or even anything to the Nazis or Hitler, and (2) I was discussing wars, which I dare say the Nazis should know more about than most people.]
This is apparently my day for discovering things everyone else already knew! I feel my originality slipping even more.
It occurs to me, based on my own pattern of behavior, that when people have a forum for writing they tend to opine rather than consider. Something I am thinking about right now is the difference between sophistry and Socraticism. I am suggesting we do a lot more sophistry than Socratic discussion.
The problem is blogs give all of us such a forum very easily, but their immediate nature prompts us to state opinions with even less considertion than traditional outlets. I admit that blogs can be much less unideirectional, but I know most of us do not use that fact to full effect. One question I have about this is whether the opining is really just a cover for deep thought, or if people really do hold opinions as solidly as they make them sound. I know in verbal communication both have been true for me in the past, but most of the time I was really just trying to figure things out, no matter how strongly I stated the case (I argued radical capitalism right up until the moment I declared myself a socialist - only to find everyone else had downgraded to the modern liberal capitalist view, blech - but that's another story). So, maybe we are still thinking even if we don't sound like it. Which raises another question, do other people know that? (Or, alternatively, I could ask, am I the only one who works that way? Maybe most people like to be "right" no matter what.)
I was thinking about how I should update my home page. The thing is right now, this blog is doing most of what would usually end up on my home page - in a different format, but in a nearly identical role and similar if not identical content despite the format difference. Here content is provided in smaller kernels that must be combined in a natural, not synthetic way, where as on a home page most of my content would be combined in an organized, hierarchical way. Sometimes that is appropriate, but usually it can be done either way. I can put fractals here or on my home page. One way collects, this way allow you to see what I am thinking as I do it. This suggests a somewhat complementary role, in fact. But right now I don't have enough to make a really complete home page; just small pieces showing up here. (Obviously, a blog could be part of a home page, but that is not the way right now I am doing it.)
Where I am really going with this is that I am finding I favor the blog model for the moment because it is a currently favored model of interaction and content distribution on the Internet. If less people understood the model, or used the model less, I would probably be more traditional. Personally, I do favor the more traditional model. Obviously, chronological content is not going away, and I won't stop producing it mysefl either, but I think more polished, more static content will come back into vogue, and when it does, I will go back that way. I actually would now (not go back to entirely, but use the two complementarily), but I don't really have the time to commit to do it properly. I think though we should not pretend blogging in its current state is a permanent institution. There will always be blogs, just as there always have been in different forms (newspapers, magazines, and journals are really just much slower forms of blogs - complete with comments and sometimes even trackbacks!), but I think they will in a few years cease to be such a direct, immediate, and comprehensive method of communication.
(This is not so much a case of following fads, I would argue, but rather choosing the medium of the moment; I think there is a time for that, especially if at the moment the message fits that medium well.)
Soon up is Klemperer conducting Beethoven's 3rd and James Levine conducting the CSO in Dvorak's 7th.
See, when my attention span is longer than 30 seconds, I too can occasionally appreciate good music. Actually the best. If you are going to have to work for it, might as well listen to Dvorak and Beethoven.
Okay, I know (well, anyway, have been led to believe, but I do believe) FOX News is not very accurate, but most of the "grown ups" (i.e. non-students) I hang around seem to love it. I would like to be able to collect and present enough damning evidence to end the myth that Fox is "fair and balanced" in a way that will convince my conservative friends. So, I am thinking about that and looking for information. Unfortunately, in the past, I did not take note when I found reports of some of Fox's exploits.
I tried to convince some people tonight that they shouldn't watch Fox and that they shouldn't watch TV news, but to no avail. I don't think people get it with TV news. Do not watch it! Oh, well. No one is listening. Interestingly, something one of these persons said about Fox being balanced was that they would try to get statements from both sides. This, of course, is everything wrong with news; do not listen to the talking heads. Talking heads are not news. You will never get real news out of them. Politics is so hacked because of talking heads. We spend years and months debating things without ever actually getting to the real heart of the issue. This is also part of the reason this country is so schizophrenic politically. You must form your own opinions using facts or at least with the help of people you can trust (why do that? we can't be equally informed on all issues; sometimes we need help from people who know what is going on in an area outside our own expertise - and by expertise I mean whatever you choose to research). Democratic and Republican operatives are not people you can trust. They will lie. They will not give you information.
So, anyway, I need the dirt on Fox. I do remember the study showing Fox viewers were more likely to have faulty knowledge about the war, but that did not prove causality. One challenge too is that just proving Fox is bad doesn't prove the other networks aren't worse, thanks alot, CBS (of course, if they would just take my advice and not watch television news...). Although, maybe that incident does show a consistent bias elsewhere - I am skeptical though, based on what else I have seen; I see the conservative bias in the supposedly liberal media unlike most conservatives (and by bias I don't just mean how they feel about it, I mean that it has a substantial impact on stories: either what gets reported or left alone or the accuracy of the story). I trust that I am not claiming this because I am simply so far left that everything else looks biased to the right; I think I am just informed enough I can see through the idiocy that gets passed off as news. Perhaps I am ultimately just deluding myself; I can't prove otherwise. I believe otherwise though, for now, and I think there is a reasoned argument that that is the case too.
Off to look for some facts to support my argument (and maybe challenge it! if I am not feeling intellectually lazy).
[Just to clarify, I am not trying necessarily to prove Fox is biased, but more so that they are inaccurate; that would be much more useful, and it is not as relative to other news sources.]
No, seriously. I just found out my favorite electronic "group" is on the iTunes Music Store. Specifically I mean Trancenden/Tal Klein. His last album Peace Love Beats is on there, and there is a new single on there (listed under Tal M. Klein, not Trancenden), "Chu Chin Chow." And he says the new album, Alpha-Beats is due out November 8! You have no idea how happy I am....
[And I found out that the name Trancenden is dead, according to Tal's livejournal. One of those many sort of dead blogs, but hey, it has some useful information on it...]
I thought this speech was interesting. I'm not saying he is right, but I think he has some of it down. (Link found on one Jordon Cooper's blog.)
By the way, another animated movie that has some similar ideas to Lilo & Stitch is Iron Giant (in both, a main character deals with the question of whether they can transcend their creation as weapons). I don't like it as much, but it is not bad, and is rather interesting. It has some unique moments, too (one thing it shares with Lilo & Sitch is that it is an odd film, though maybe not quite as odd...).
