I wanted to begin my blog today by first extending my condolences to the people Norway. For those who are unaware, the people of Norway were subjected to a period of terror brought about by a militant extremist. While details are still emerging, readers can find what disturbing details that have emerged through simple news search.
However, as this tragedy unfolded, I have been shocked by the reactions many people have had. They have ranged from the disrespectful- people using the tragedy as a platform to forward their political beliefs in regards to carrying arms- to the outright disgusting with people asserting that the attack is a false flag designed to insight UN martial law (I'm not joking). These speculations and assertions do a tremendous amount of disrespect to the memory of those who fell in the rampage.
To those who speak up about this proving that people should more widely be allowed to carry guns I can only point out that this happened in a foreign country and that their laws are their own. I also want to point out that such arguments come at the expense of those whose memories are now placed in the uneasy light of what has happened. To those who assert these outrageous conspiracy theories I can only hope that you never have to experience the pain and heartache of losing someone you love to the kind of violence that transpired in Oslo and Utoya.
What has also come from this tragedy is a deadly reminder that over the past few years, right-wing extremism has pushed its way into European politics. This has ranged from a German author asserting that Muslim Turks are "dumbing down the German population" to anti-immigrant parties gaining support in various political bodies. And we must not forget that several countries have declared a "failure of multi-culturalism." Ideas of cultural purity and national identity are not new to this period in history, but there is a raging undercurrent of xenophobia that is taking too strong a hold.
And this is not a European problem. No one can deny that here, in the United States, there has been a perpetual problem with the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum. Domestic terror does not simply appear when there is an attack- it festers in the minds and hearts of the hateful. When public discourse continues on and allows the levels of wide-spread vitriol to rise we expose ourselves, constantly, to the kind of threats these people pose.
There is something more contemporaneous that bears mentioning. There are indications that the assailant was an ardent anti-islamic extremist. His hopes were to insight a grand revolution with Islam representing his central enemy. Islamaphobia, a particular xenophobic hate that has only gained momentum since 9/11 and recent waves of immigration in the EU, is not only a disturbing but dangerous. There must be no mistake, anti-Islamic sentiments represent racism and erroneous thinking at its worst, and it has revealed itself to have horrendous consequences.
Islamaphobia has been one of the most terrifying aspects of modern political discourse in my eyes. And to see someone, so convinced by this hatred take to armed force only solidifies my anxieties. Innocent youths were gunned down in cold blood because one man was allowed to fester his hatred. People going about their day were taken from this world simply because of their political positions. And while Norway was where these hatreds came to a head, the danger exists everywhere that these prejudices are allowed to grow.
In the wake of this tragedy, there is one thing I think I am obliged to do. It is not to strike out with hatred and support crackdowns, but to speak out against hatred everywhere. We, in the United States, are not immune to the troubles of extremism at home and we have an obligation, if we cherish peace and prosperity, not to strike out against enemies everywhere but to speak out and be aware of the troubles in our own homes. To the people in Norway, the most I can offer is my promise to do my part in cutting through the lies and hatreds that breed this kind of violence.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Narratives that Work (unfortunately)
It's starting to feel like the only thing I write about is politics and the media, but a comment on my last blog did get me thinking about something that I felt should be written. The comment read, in part, as follows:
As the commenter above notes, there is a very real possibility that FOX news is the only right-wing outlet against the liberally controlled news sector because they sell themselves as such. I think the commenter is absolutely right in pointing out that there's something very wrong when we think we have to have a right-wing balance in our news media because it belies the fact that these outlets are in the business, to a great extent, of producing truth. And their narrative is successful to a great degree. What I wanted to point out in the last post was that Murdoch's problems have, in part, triggered an attack by other news agencies because this kind of dichotomy has triggered a battle between two ends of the spectrum who work to produce their truths and sell them. And the consumers allow that because that's what they want.
My whole point in mentioning the Chomsky hypothesis was to suggest that there are too many people who radicalize the position and expect the fault to be on the media-state relationship and that their logic borders on conspiratorial thinking. I wanted to suggest that there's actually a huge level of complacency from consumers of the media for what is broadcasted. We have bought the narratives and we like the narratives being delivered in accordance to our likings. This mode of media consumption has also generated cases where journalists do some rather questionable things ethically.
But I think there's something else worth mentioning in the construction of these right-wing versus left-wing narratives. Right-wing groups have consistently cried foul against the media for being unabashedly liberal and working against the conservative position. They insist that the media pursues a liberal agenda. I want to be clear- this is not all conservatives, just the loudest ones. And we have seen these groups even suggest, just last year, that NPR was an overtly liberal organization. This is clearly a stretch in my eyes, but nonetheless it demonstrates how the playing field is set up. The alternatives are set up as pushing one agenda leaving room for organizations like News Corp to push the exact opposite one.
So when I say that News Corp is the only right-wing outlet in a sea of liberal outlets, I suppose I am speaking from the vantage point of the consumer, not the careful observer. The narratives, unfortunately, do work and they do incur real reactions. In this case, Murdoch's troubles trigger a wave of news stories covering the scandal and being careful to mention Murdoch in as many instances as possible. This then becomes ample evidence for many that there is an overtly liberal ocean looking to crush the only conservative voice out there. These are real arguments people have presented me with, so its hard not to take them seriously in so far as this is the environment people are maneuvering in when it comes to their news.
My next blog post will have nothing to do with this subject. Promise.
Do you really feel like News Corps (notably Fox News) are the only right-wing news in a sea of liberally-slanted news outlets? Or is that a particular narrative they try to convey? Perhaps even more bitingly – but my own particular flavor of media critique – is to be found in a now I suppose sort of old Catherine Lutz piece "Reading National Geographic," which briefly discusses at what point did the truth become taking the most extreme political views on the perceived right and left, and having some audience-produced synthesis of them being the "truth?" In other words, why do we (perceive a) need (for) a right-wing network to counterbalance left-wing networks if not for the sake that somehow having two strongly and unabashedly opinionated views to create "balanced" truth.I suppose the informal nature of my blog has allowed me to be imprecise. I should absolutely clarify what I mean when I saw that News Corp is the only right-wing news outlet in a sea of liberal news outlets. There is a number of incredibly high-profile news outlets that sell opinion as news and have begun to do less and less meaningful analysis. And I don't mean this from the perspective of someone who studied political philosophy and political science, I mean this from the vantage point of a consumer of news. And most of these big name news sources have been demonstrated to have a "liberal-slant" or bias, notably The New York Times and MSNBC among others. I read the Times and even I can tell when the liberal-bias pops up- it just doesn't bother me because their factual errors are far less prevalent than those on FOX news. MSNBC, however, has begun to do something pretty troubling, and I think this move is characteristic of something I noted once before and alluded to in my last post.
As the commenter above notes, there is a very real possibility that FOX news is the only right-wing outlet against the liberally controlled news sector because they sell themselves as such. I think the commenter is absolutely right in pointing out that there's something very wrong when we think we have to have a right-wing balance in our news media because it belies the fact that these outlets are in the business, to a great extent, of producing truth. And their narrative is successful to a great degree. What I wanted to point out in the last post was that Murdoch's problems have, in part, triggered an attack by other news agencies because this kind of dichotomy has triggered a battle between two ends of the spectrum who work to produce their truths and sell them. And the consumers allow that because that's what they want.
My whole point in mentioning the Chomsky hypothesis was to suggest that there are too many people who radicalize the position and expect the fault to be on the media-state relationship and that their logic borders on conspiratorial thinking. I wanted to suggest that there's actually a huge level of complacency from consumers of the media for what is broadcasted. We have bought the narratives and we like the narratives being delivered in accordance to our likings. This mode of media consumption has also generated cases where journalists do some rather questionable things ethically.
But I think there's something else worth mentioning in the construction of these right-wing versus left-wing narratives. Right-wing groups have consistently cried foul against the media for being unabashedly liberal and working against the conservative position. They insist that the media pursues a liberal agenda. I want to be clear- this is not all conservatives, just the loudest ones. And we have seen these groups even suggest, just last year, that NPR was an overtly liberal organization. This is clearly a stretch in my eyes, but nonetheless it demonstrates how the playing field is set up. The alternatives are set up as pushing one agenda leaving room for organizations like News Corp to push the exact opposite one.
So when I say that News Corp is the only right-wing outlet in a sea of liberal outlets, I suppose I am speaking from the vantage point of the consumer, not the careful observer. The narratives, unfortunately, do work and they do incur real reactions. In this case, Murdoch's troubles trigger a wave of news stories covering the scandal and being careful to mention Murdoch in as many instances as possible. This then becomes ample evidence for many that there is an overtly liberal ocean looking to crush the only conservative voice out there. These are real arguments people have presented me with, so its hard not to take them seriously in so far as this is the environment people are maneuvering in when it comes to their news.
My next blog post will have nothing to do with this subject. Promise.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Blame Game
Ever since Noam Chomsky published his book Manufacturing Consent and the subsequent movie was made on his book, it appears that every young radical I meet or encounter both in person and online is utterly and completely infatuated with everything that book had to say. There has also been a move away from the writings of Chomsky and a move towards the expansion of "media conspiracy" arguments made at every term. The recent scandal involving Rupert Murdoch's News International and revelations about the relationship between police and media sources has only seemed to reinforce these views of the media.
There should be no mistake, there is evidence to support many things that Chomsky has to say. The relationship between the media and government and the ways in which media works on its consumers is truly fascinating, but I personally believe that Chomsky overstates his case. But to suggest such a position to young radicals in love with the thesis is to declare oneself a "shill" and a slave to the system.
But I don't see grand conspiracies or organized efforts between the state and media to produce desired effects. Instead, I see amoral institutions acting in their own self interest, namely achieving readership and thus profits. This typically creates ethically dubious relationships between the media and the contacts they maintain both among law enforcement and government (as well as any other story subject). Its fairly clear that the drive of news organizations is towards profit and survival, and when ethical issues arise they only form weak obstructions to the efforts of the more deplorable of journalists. There are structural pressures on journalists as the company for which they work demands results, and the journalists must either cave into the pressure or hobble their career to some degree.
Now, this does not, in any way, shape, or form excuse what Murdoch's News International has done. No, what it does is demonstrate the moral weakness of its members and its leadership. The greatest challenge for these editors and CEOs is to express some individual moral integrity to resist the structural pressures of being in a corporate environment. It is not easy, but that does not make it acceptable to surrender to such despicable forces in an effort to achieve the "story."
The irony is that now Murdoch's news empire is the story, and every other news outlet has pounced on it. While there is an element of justice to this turn in the road, there is also something to be cautious of as this story moves forward. Murdoch's various networks, most infamously FOX news, are notorious for their right wing bias in an ocean of liberally biased news sources. They are also notorious for their really poor reporting and hyper-distorting style of analysis. So, naturally, networks like MSNBC have pounced upon this crying for blood. There's a part of me, too, that wants this to cripple and alter the way Murdoch's news networks operate. But that may be a sign of my naïve nature.
But returning to my reason for writing this post: I remain amazed that people try to turn this into a Chomsky issue where the state-media relationship is the only one of value. But when you look at this whole thing, it speaks to the way we consume media, and how our consumption plays a direct role in the pressures and motives that engender stories like these. Its hard to believe that such a systemic failure of morality by these journalists and CEOs would have been possible if there weren't such a demand and environment around such deplorable reporting. Again, this is not an effort to let these people off the hook, but rather a long way of saying that people who blame the state-media relationship are shifting the blame and not being self-reflexive. At the same time, I am not trying to dismiss what Chomsky and his readers argue for- I'm just saying that its not the only story in town.
My little self-righteous blog will not change anything. Rather, this really serves to remind myself that I can be caught up in the sensationalization of news and the media wars that go on. Huge, amoral news corporations all circle one another in the tank, waiting for any sign that they can eliminate the competition. I believe that that is precisely what is happening, and viewers and read of the more leftist-media outlets are wasting no time in enjoying Murdoch squirm. But this is not just about Murdoch anymore. NPR did a story yesterday covering the systemic issues in the media-law enforcement relationship, and I appreciated it. Rather than delighting in Murdoch's discomfort, they tried to draw out the bigger question. And that, I think, is really important
There should be no mistake, there is evidence to support many things that Chomsky has to say. The relationship between the media and government and the ways in which media works on its consumers is truly fascinating, but I personally believe that Chomsky overstates his case. But to suggest such a position to young radicals in love with the thesis is to declare oneself a "shill" and a slave to the system.
But I don't see grand conspiracies or organized efforts between the state and media to produce desired effects. Instead, I see amoral institutions acting in their own self interest, namely achieving readership and thus profits. This typically creates ethically dubious relationships between the media and the contacts they maintain both among law enforcement and government (as well as any other story subject). Its fairly clear that the drive of news organizations is towards profit and survival, and when ethical issues arise they only form weak obstructions to the efforts of the more deplorable of journalists. There are structural pressures on journalists as the company for which they work demands results, and the journalists must either cave into the pressure or hobble their career to some degree.
Now, this does not, in any way, shape, or form excuse what Murdoch's News International has done. No, what it does is demonstrate the moral weakness of its members and its leadership. The greatest challenge for these editors and CEOs is to express some individual moral integrity to resist the structural pressures of being in a corporate environment. It is not easy, but that does not make it acceptable to surrender to such despicable forces in an effort to achieve the "story."
The irony is that now Murdoch's news empire is the story, and every other news outlet has pounced on it. While there is an element of justice to this turn in the road, there is also something to be cautious of as this story moves forward. Murdoch's various networks, most infamously FOX news, are notorious for their right wing bias in an ocean of liberally biased news sources. They are also notorious for their really poor reporting and hyper-distorting style of analysis. So, naturally, networks like MSNBC have pounced upon this crying for blood. There's a part of me, too, that wants this to cripple and alter the way Murdoch's news networks operate. But that may be a sign of my naïve nature.
But returning to my reason for writing this post: I remain amazed that people try to turn this into a Chomsky issue where the state-media relationship is the only one of value. But when you look at this whole thing, it speaks to the way we consume media, and how our consumption plays a direct role in the pressures and motives that engender stories like these. Its hard to believe that such a systemic failure of morality by these journalists and CEOs would have been possible if there weren't such a demand and environment around such deplorable reporting. Again, this is not an effort to let these people off the hook, but rather a long way of saying that people who blame the state-media relationship are shifting the blame and not being self-reflexive. At the same time, I am not trying to dismiss what Chomsky and his readers argue for- I'm just saying that its not the only story in town.
My little self-righteous blog will not change anything. Rather, this really serves to remind myself that I can be caught up in the sensationalization of news and the media wars that go on. Huge, amoral news corporations all circle one another in the tank, waiting for any sign that they can eliminate the competition. I believe that that is precisely what is happening, and viewers and read of the more leftist-media outlets are wasting no time in enjoying Murdoch squirm. But this is not just about Murdoch anymore. NPR did a story yesterday covering the systemic issues in the media-law enforcement relationship, and I appreciated it. Rather than delighting in Murdoch's discomfort, they tried to draw out the bigger question. And that, I think, is really important
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Loving Apples (Hating Oranges)
Here's my challenge to myself: write this entire blog post before OS X Lion finishes download. As of right now, I have 32...no 36...no 28 minutes to go. Challenge accepted.
I decided to make my first timely software update purchase by getting OS X Lion. As you may already know, I have a fetish for slick interfaces and shiny new technology. This is a habit I cannot support on my fellowship over the next few years, but $30 for a software I'm going to need down the road did not sound like a bad purchase at all. So I went ahead and downloaded it. We'll see how this turns out.
Mac users are notorious for their rabid, cult like behavior surrounding all things Apple. And its hard not to be, considering that all Apple products have the wonderful quality of forming an aesthetic continuum. I enjoy the simple interface because I don't have the time nor the wherewithal to sink into learning the backdoor aspects of Windows, nor does my computer experience revolve around this set up. So I am content with my Macbook Pro and my itouch.
Now, I do not have an iphone. This is the one thing I don't particularly care to have from the Apple line of dogmatic objects. A smart phone is sufficient for me, and I have no interest in syncing it with my computer. I download the apps I want and move on with calling all my hoes in their respective area codes.
I am also not of the opinion that mac is inherently superior to windows. It just is for me. I have avoided all the malware that use to cripple my windows machines and my last macbook is still running 5 years after purchase, albeit in a slightly hobbled fashion. I have had a great experience with apple, and that alone keeps me coming back to their line of products. Well, that and Lord Jobs hath commanded it.
In the time it took me to write this meaningless, stupid blog, my wait time for lion has gone to...2 hours 59 minutes.
I hate people.
I decided to make my first timely software update purchase by getting OS X Lion. As you may already know, I have a fetish for slick interfaces and shiny new technology. This is a habit I cannot support on my fellowship over the next few years, but $30 for a software I'm going to need down the road did not sound like a bad purchase at all. So I went ahead and downloaded it. We'll see how this turns out.
Mac users are notorious for their rabid, cult like behavior surrounding all things Apple. And its hard not to be, considering that all Apple products have the wonderful quality of forming an aesthetic continuum. I enjoy the simple interface because I don't have the time nor the wherewithal to sink into learning the backdoor aspects of Windows, nor does my computer experience revolve around this set up. So I am content with my Macbook Pro and my itouch.
Now, I do not have an iphone. This is the one thing I don't particularly care to have from the Apple line of dogmatic objects. A smart phone is sufficient for me, and I have no interest in syncing it with my computer. I download the apps I want and move on with calling all my hoes in their respective area codes.
I am also not of the opinion that mac is inherently superior to windows. It just is for me. I have avoided all the malware that use to cripple my windows machines and my last macbook is still running 5 years after purchase, albeit in a slightly hobbled fashion. I have had a great experience with apple, and that alone keeps me coming back to their line of products. Well, that and Lord Jobs hath commanded it.
In the time it took me to write this meaningless, stupid blog, my wait time for lion has gone to...2 hours 59 minutes.
I hate people.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Community Church Hour
In an effort to take a hiatus from talking about the increasingly frustrating world of politics and the debt ceiling I'd like to talk to you about Jesus- and by Jesus I mean my religious experiences. And by religious experiences I mean my general lack thereof.
My long-time girlfriend is a reform Jew and I am an I-went-to-church-but-didn't-like-it Catholic. For the longest time I have always been repulsed by the idea of organized religion and the idea of belonging to a religious community in which doctrine is taught and discussed. My experiences in church have always been rather dim and feature me sitting in a pew and going along with everything until there's a sudden political charge or quasi-offensive statement made. It all has a way of taking my focus off of thinking about God and the nature of the universe in theological terms and instead makes me think that people have a great way of abusing something really fascinating to forward their own interpretation.
Don't get me wrong here, I fully support peoples' decisions to belong to congregations and communities. I am going to disagree with their interpretations pretty vehemently at times, but on the whole I totally understand the merit of belonging to a church. I actually really got it after I went to synagogue with my girlfriend for Shabbat services this past Friday.
The beginning of the services were framed by a general meeting of people in the front lobby with various snacks being offered. It was amazing to watch my girlfriend's mom greet people and these people in term hugging and talking to my girlfriend as they tried to catch up on her life. See, these were non-relatives who were genuinely invested, in one way or the other, in her life. Coming home really has extra meaning when you belong to such a close community. When services began, I was introduced to the family seated in front of me, and as the Rabbi began to speak the father gave me a light tap on the knee and said "we're glad to have you here." Now, I don't know if he thought I was jewish or was simply happy to have people at temple, but the outward expression of welcoming was certainly a sincere one.
As a whole, I don't find much to disagree with the reform movement's view of God. So the entire service was, as a whole, something that allowed me to reflect on my own personal beliefs. I appreciated that. See, my own view holds that religious texts are not only open to interpretation, but scrutiny, and I like to take times to really think about what I believe in. This service let me do just that. Now, there are some ritualistic things that I don't necessarily see as necessary, but nothing was overtly contentious to me.
After the service there was yet more visiting with people who had known my girlfriend since she was a little girl. The atmosphere, as a whole, was one of the first times I felt a sincere and deep sense of community among members of a congregation. And maybe this was a result of me allowing myself to see it rather than clothing my experience in an anticipatory veil of cynicism. In any event, I really got it and it made me, to a degree, wish I had something like that. Don't get me wrong, I have great friends and the teams I have belonged to have established great senses of community. But this was something all together unique.
I could of course think about the whole thing as an exercise of Durkheim's communal effervescence, but that doesn't quite seem to apply. The whole tenor of the service was a reverence for God through the existence of human life and the community as a whole. The community itself is the subject of worship, in a very large way, and I think that's pretty remarkable.
Now, I wont be in line to convert any time soon- my cynicism for organized religion and my overriding sense of private and personal belief are just too high an obstacle to leap now. But the experience really does get me thinking about the kinds of communities we can belong to, and how genuine they can be. Maybe a little bit of my cynicism about organized faith has taken a hit. I think I "get it" a little bit more.
My long-time girlfriend is a reform Jew and I am an I-went-to-church-but-didn't-like-it Catholic. For the longest time I have always been repulsed by the idea of organized religion and the idea of belonging to a religious community in which doctrine is taught and discussed. My experiences in church have always been rather dim and feature me sitting in a pew and going along with everything until there's a sudden political charge or quasi-offensive statement made. It all has a way of taking my focus off of thinking about God and the nature of the universe in theological terms and instead makes me think that people have a great way of abusing something really fascinating to forward their own interpretation.
Don't get me wrong here, I fully support peoples' decisions to belong to congregations and communities. I am going to disagree with their interpretations pretty vehemently at times, but on the whole I totally understand the merit of belonging to a church. I actually really got it after I went to synagogue with my girlfriend for Shabbat services this past Friday.
The beginning of the services were framed by a general meeting of people in the front lobby with various snacks being offered. It was amazing to watch my girlfriend's mom greet people and these people in term hugging and talking to my girlfriend as they tried to catch up on her life. See, these were non-relatives who were genuinely invested, in one way or the other, in her life. Coming home really has extra meaning when you belong to such a close community. When services began, I was introduced to the family seated in front of me, and as the Rabbi began to speak the father gave me a light tap on the knee and said "we're glad to have you here." Now, I don't know if he thought I was jewish or was simply happy to have people at temple, but the outward expression of welcoming was certainly a sincere one.
As a whole, I don't find much to disagree with the reform movement's view of God. So the entire service was, as a whole, something that allowed me to reflect on my own personal beliefs. I appreciated that. See, my own view holds that religious texts are not only open to interpretation, but scrutiny, and I like to take times to really think about what I believe in. This service let me do just that. Now, there are some ritualistic things that I don't necessarily see as necessary, but nothing was overtly contentious to me.
After the service there was yet more visiting with people who had known my girlfriend since she was a little girl. The atmosphere, as a whole, was one of the first times I felt a sincere and deep sense of community among members of a congregation. And maybe this was a result of me allowing myself to see it rather than clothing my experience in an anticipatory veil of cynicism. In any event, I really got it and it made me, to a degree, wish I had something like that. Don't get me wrong, I have great friends and the teams I have belonged to have established great senses of community. But this was something all together unique.
I could of course think about the whole thing as an exercise of Durkheim's communal effervescence, but that doesn't quite seem to apply. The whole tenor of the service was a reverence for God through the existence of human life and the community as a whole. The community itself is the subject of worship, in a very large way, and I think that's pretty remarkable.
Now, I wont be in line to convert any time soon- my cynicism for organized religion and my overriding sense of private and personal belief are just too high an obstacle to leap now. But the experience really does get me thinking about the kinds of communities we can belong to, and how genuine they can be. Maybe a little bit of my cynicism about organized faith has taken a hit. I think I "get it" a little bit more.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
You Don't Scare Me! (Yet)
Waiting for my PhD program is really beginning to turn into a strange experience. I spend my days reading some lighter history books, messing around online, updating this blog, and generally loafing about. But in the back of my mind I know I have to finish all the necessary paperwork to register at Princeton this fall and start down the course of a PhD- an experience I don't think I've actually heard a positive thing about.
Undergraduate work at UChicago was really harrowing at times, and there were bouts of anxiety, insomnia, and general discomfort, to be sure. But I am fully aware, at least nominally, about the stresses exerted by a PhD program. And I'm certain the prospect of living in a foreign country for a year will only add to the stressors to be had. Yet, I still don't think I fully get it. I mean, really get it.
See, these PhD students are all people who love (or should love) studying, researching, and engaging with the field they are in. These are students who aspire to understand, in an intiment way, the literature and landscape of their chosen fields. And still they all seem so utterly destroyed by what they are doing that they can hardly be called human anymore. I'm on the chopping block, and still I may be in a little bit of denial.
Like I said, I know its going to be hard, just not how hard. My mental picture of my life, at least for the next two years, includes a home life with my girlfriend, drinking coffee, and reading things I'm interested in (and more things I'm not interested in) while attending classes and sitting at my desk during the day. My mental picture still has room for me to exist outside the classwork, though not outside the process of engaging with the ideas and concepts I need to master. I have the vision of me happy despite the trials of difficult coursework. But maybe I just don't get how much work there is. Maybe I don't fully comprehend that the work is, in the words of so many broken PhD students, isolating. I just don't understand what that is supposed to mean.
So, I am spending my summer reading what I want to read, going on trips, and generally just being an utter burden on society. All the while I speed on towards something I think I understand and am ready for, yet will potentially defy all my expectations. This is typically how things unfold, is it not? Add to this a prevailing sense that I am woefully unprepared to keep pace with my peers. I didn't major in Anthropology, and I haven't kept pace with the "current literature." I just happen to love the questions I can ask in the field and the answers that seem to come back. Maybe that love is enough to sustain me.
Undergraduate work at UChicago was really harrowing at times, and there were bouts of anxiety, insomnia, and general discomfort, to be sure. But I am fully aware, at least nominally, about the stresses exerted by a PhD program. And I'm certain the prospect of living in a foreign country for a year will only add to the stressors to be had. Yet, I still don't think I fully get it. I mean, really get it.
See, these PhD students are all people who love (or should love) studying, researching, and engaging with the field they are in. These are students who aspire to understand, in an intiment way, the literature and landscape of their chosen fields. And still they all seem so utterly destroyed by what they are doing that they can hardly be called human anymore. I'm on the chopping block, and still I may be in a little bit of denial.
Like I said, I know its going to be hard, just not how hard. My mental picture of my life, at least for the next two years, includes a home life with my girlfriend, drinking coffee, and reading things I'm interested in (and more things I'm not interested in) while attending classes and sitting at my desk during the day. My mental picture still has room for me to exist outside the classwork, though not outside the process of engaging with the ideas and concepts I need to master. I have the vision of me happy despite the trials of difficult coursework. But maybe I just don't get how much work there is. Maybe I don't fully comprehend that the work is, in the words of so many broken PhD students, isolating. I just don't understand what that is supposed to mean.
So, I am spending my summer reading what I want to read, going on trips, and generally just being an utter burden on society. All the while I speed on towards something I think I understand and am ready for, yet will potentially defy all my expectations. This is typically how things unfold, is it not? Add to this a prevailing sense that I am woefully unprepared to keep pace with my peers. I didn't major in Anthropology, and I haven't kept pace with the "current literature." I just happen to love the questions I can ask in the field and the answers that seem to come back. Maybe that love is enough to sustain me.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Political Faults and Defaults
I am writing this post out ahead of President Obama's scheduled press conference on the debt ceiling negotiations, but I am, unfortunately, confident that little will change afterwards. The debt ceiling first came onto my radar two months ago when I happened upon an article that mentioned it in passing. Now, it appears that the debt ceiling is one of the more unfortunate defining moment in American society. With Democrats and Republicans standing fundamentally a world apart, it appears that the rest of us are the victims of this dispute.
There is nothing new I can say about the politics of the matter. I have no unique insights into the workings of the negotiations or the prospects of any deal being reached. However, I can speak to a climate of fear and frustration that has been burgeoning in people as the days go on. One need not look far, unfortunately, to find some of the worse sentiments being expressed. Just scroll down any YouTube video or blog entry on the matter and you'll see exactly the kind of thing I talked about here. Vitriol, it is clear, is born in the spaces where our ability to control outcomes is most limited.
At stake in all of this is the material life Americans have become accustomed to as well as the stability of the global economy. And make no mistake, this is precisely what is at stake. People like Michele Bachman who insist that a default would not be catastrophic demonstrate their incompetence in the realm of international finance and geopolitical economic matters and they should not be any measure of our appropriate responses to the crisis. So the score is this- this crisis has untold consequences that will inextricably change the United States domestically and internationally while politicians in the Tea Party and extremes of the GOP dominate the politics of denial.
Its difficult to not sit back and watch these negotiations and just resign myself to defeat. Not because I think the deal would cost so much or that the default is imminent, but because I can actually feel whatever little faith I had in politics slip away. And make no mistake, I blame both parties tremendously, but the GOP commands much more of my scorn. The time for petty politics has passed and yet they continue to play on like petulant children at a game far beyond their level of comprehension. Harsh words? Good. I don't like to make comments like that about politics, but this is where I find myself.
Even if some agreement is made, even if it is the "escape hatch" plan, I can have no confidence that congress will remain competent in doing its job. And part of that is because I fear that this debate has further polarized the American public and generated an even more divide body politic. I may be exhibiting an overly myopic perspective on politics in America, but there is something deeply unsettling about all of this beyond the threat of default. I am seeing less discussion of competing visions of the good and more Anne Coulter attack debates. Of course, there was never a golden age of political discourse in this country, but I think that the default of more long-lasting detriment is that of our political discourse on all levels.
I hope that come 2012, there is a change in the political landscape away from the kind of bickering and polarization that we see now. Maybe this will fade to a painful memory, but somehow, I doubt it.
There is nothing new I can say about the politics of the matter. I have no unique insights into the workings of the negotiations or the prospects of any deal being reached. However, I can speak to a climate of fear and frustration that has been burgeoning in people as the days go on. One need not look far, unfortunately, to find some of the worse sentiments being expressed. Just scroll down any YouTube video or blog entry on the matter and you'll see exactly the kind of thing I talked about here. Vitriol, it is clear, is born in the spaces where our ability to control outcomes is most limited.
At stake in all of this is the material life Americans have become accustomed to as well as the stability of the global economy. And make no mistake, this is precisely what is at stake. People like Michele Bachman who insist that a default would not be catastrophic demonstrate their incompetence in the realm of international finance and geopolitical economic matters and they should not be any measure of our appropriate responses to the crisis. So the score is this- this crisis has untold consequences that will inextricably change the United States domestically and internationally while politicians in the Tea Party and extremes of the GOP dominate the politics of denial.
Its difficult to not sit back and watch these negotiations and just resign myself to defeat. Not because I think the deal would cost so much or that the default is imminent, but because I can actually feel whatever little faith I had in politics slip away. And make no mistake, I blame both parties tremendously, but the GOP commands much more of my scorn. The time for petty politics has passed and yet they continue to play on like petulant children at a game far beyond their level of comprehension. Harsh words? Good. I don't like to make comments like that about politics, but this is where I find myself.
Even if some agreement is made, even if it is the "escape hatch" plan, I can have no confidence that congress will remain competent in doing its job. And part of that is because I fear that this debate has further polarized the American public and generated an even more divide body politic. I may be exhibiting an overly myopic perspective on politics in America, but there is something deeply unsettling about all of this beyond the threat of default. I am seeing less discussion of competing visions of the good and more Anne Coulter attack debates. Of course, there was never a golden age of political discourse in this country, but I think that the default of more long-lasting detriment is that of our political discourse on all levels.
I hope that come 2012, there is a change in the political landscape away from the kind of bickering and polarization that we see now. Maybe this will fade to a painful memory, but somehow, I doubt it.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Islands or Anomalies?
My book for the month of July has been Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America by Eugene Robinson. The book has been an enjoyable read, as so many books by journalists are. Like Philip Gourevich's We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed with our Families this book approaches a very serious and weighty, if a little over-done, issue without becoming bogged down in the theoretical speak and academic jargon to which I have grown accustomed. In essence, the book is incredibly accessible and gives me the illusion that I'm challenging myself when all I'm really doing is passively absorbing a pretty well written book.
Now, there are certainly things about the book I just roll my eyes at. Robinson breaks down the new, post-civil rights black America four names- the Mainstream, the Transcendent, the Emergent and the Abandoned. Robinson then procedes to give anecdotes and cursory histories of how these groups emerged from a previously monolithic black America. Where this book would do the most good, I believe, is in the hands of people who have not recognized a bourgeoning middle class in the African American population. As for me, there are parts of me that wrestle with the lack of detail in the book, the overuse of the word "culture" and the notion that cultures can be static and distinct entities that demand either preservation or assimilation with no room for other avenues of exchange. I don't think Robinson's mission was to go down these roads, but still that's where my mind goes.
However, as I read the chapters on "the Abandoned" something stuck out to me. Robinson discusses the process of gentrification in which poor black residents are forced out by aggressive development and city planning. Having been a Chicago resident, I know exactly what this process looks like before, during, and after. And what is so striking to me is a question of what my old neighborhood will look like in just a few years.
Hyde Park, where the University of Chicago is located, has always been a wealthy bubble surrounded by poverty. On numerous runs through the south side I have heard people yell "You in the wrong neighborhood!" and other, much less savory, quips. But what is more shocking is the way in which the University expanded its dorms south of the Midway and right up to the border it agreed never to cross with the community around it- 61st street to the south. Now, I lived on the other side of 61st street for two years, and I saw as the University Police Department moved its massive glass police station to the north side of 61st street and UCPD patrols began running in force. All of this was, of course, to ensure safety for the students. But it also began to create a strange border land. Just two blocks further south there are more empty lots than businesses and gang fights are common. There appears to be an implicit cooperation between the university and developers now, however. The way to really make students safe is to make the areas south of 61st street both more alluring to students and faculty and also inundating the area with police force.
There is of course the argument that by developing south of the Midway, the university (by way of outside developers) will bring more opportunity to the residents of the south side and thus increase the standard of living. A truly daunting task when one looks around the south side and the garbage, dollar generals with barbed-wire, and Western Unions. But what I now wonder is what the residents of Woodlawn (the community joining Hyde Park in the south) will do as developers aggressively work to reshape the urban landscape. And I wonder what Robinson's book would look like if he took Hyde Park and Woodlawn as a specific case of gentrification. Hyde Park has always had an uneasy relationship with its neighbors, and poverty is not out of sight and out of mind there. Certainly it is peripheral in many regards- we had our own regular pan-handlers who were known by name and thefts and robberies always brought about a new UCPD swarm to push out non-Hyde Parkers who appeared ready to do students harm. But still, to those who were observent enough, there was clearly a whole different south side than the one presented on campus. Its one where people live and constantly live with this other monolith living to their north. I wonder, as the years go on, how these communities will change and how they will struggle against a community that has many more resources at its disposal than they do.
So what of places like Hyde Park? Many residents are employed by the university, but at the same time those communities are perpetual threats that are slowly being battled by way of development. I wonder what someone like Robinson would have to say about places like Hyde Park. And I wonder if maybe I could, one day, have something to say about it. You know, something smart to say. We'll see
Now, there are certainly things about the book I just roll my eyes at. Robinson breaks down the new, post-civil rights black America four names- the Mainstream, the Transcendent, the Emergent and the Abandoned. Robinson then procedes to give anecdotes and cursory histories of how these groups emerged from a previously monolithic black America. Where this book would do the most good, I believe, is in the hands of people who have not recognized a bourgeoning middle class in the African American population. As for me, there are parts of me that wrestle with the lack of detail in the book, the overuse of the word "culture" and the notion that cultures can be static and distinct entities that demand either preservation or assimilation with no room for other avenues of exchange. I don't think Robinson's mission was to go down these roads, but still that's where my mind goes.
However, as I read the chapters on "the Abandoned" something stuck out to me. Robinson discusses the process of gentrification in which poor black residents are forced out by aggressive development and city planning. Having been a Chicago resident, I know exactly what this process looks like before, during, and after. And what is so striking to me is a question of what my old neighborhood will look like in just a few years.
Hyde Park, where the University of Chicago is located, has always been a wealthy bubble surrounded by poverty. On numerous runs through the south side I have heard people yell "You in the wrong neighborhood!" and other, much less savory, quips. But what is more shocking is the way in which the University expanded its dorms south of the Midway and right up to the border it agreed never to cross with the community around it- 61st street to the south. Now, I lived on the other side of 61st street for two years, and I saw as the University Police Department moved its massive glass police station to the north side of 61st street and UCPD patrols began running in force. All of this was, of course, to ensure safety for the students. But it also began to create a strange border land. Just two blocks further south there are more empty lots than businesses and gang fights are common. There appears to be an implicit cooperation between the university and developers now, however. The way to really make students safe is to make the areas south of 61st street both more alluring to students and faculty and also inundating the area with police force.
There is of course the argument that by developing south of the Midway, the university (by way of outside developers) will bring more opportunity to the residents of the south side and thus increase the standard of living. A truly daunting task when one looks around the south side and the garbage, dollar generals with barbed-wire, and Western Unions. But what I now wonder is what the residents of Woodlawn (the community joining Hyde Park in the south) will do as developers aggressively work to reshape the urban landscape. And I wonder what Robinson's book would look like if he took Hyde Park and Woodlawn as a specific case of gentrification. Hyde Park has always had an uneasy relationship with its neighbors, and poverty is not out of sight and out of mind there. Certainly it is peripheral in many regards- we had our own regular pan-handlers who were known by name and thefts and robberies always brought about a new UCPD swarm to push out non-Hyde Parkers who appeared ready to do students harm. But still, to those who were observent enough, there was clearly a whole different south side than the one presented on campus. Its one where people live and constantly live with this other monolith living to their north. I wonder, as the years go on, how these communities will change and how they will struggle against a community that has many more resources at its disposal than they do.
So what of places like Hyde Park? Many residents are employed by the university, but at the same time those communities are perpetual threats that are slowly being battled by way of development. I wonder what someone like Robinson would have to say about places like Hyde Park. And I wonder if maybe I could, one day, have something to say about it. You know, something smart to say. We'll see
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Just Some Guy on a Yacht
It has been some time since I last updated this blog because I have actually been out on the road a lot in the last few days. My girlfriend's family and I made a trip down to the Lake of the Ozarks to spend some time on a yacht that belongs to a family friend of theirs. That's right, I am on a yacht.
What's so amazing about this experience isn't just the fact that I'm on a yacht and spend my days swimming, hiking, and cruising the lake all day. That's all great, but what is really amazing is the fact that I get to take a look, however briefly, into a completely different world than my own. See, I am by no stretch of the imagination a wealthy person. My parents have one house, three pretty standard cars, and we don't indulge in too much. I am a soon-to-be graduate student. So this yacht may be the only yacht I am ever on unless I decide to do an ethnography on wealthy trust-fund kids on residential lakes.
This is a world governed by a strange mix of concealed and present wealth. It is obviously present because everywhere along this lake there are massive homes with fake palm trees sitting outside and a mega-yacht followed by kids spinning around on wave-runners. And they must see us on the yacht and just simply accept that we are the kind of people who own a yacht. But the wealth is concealed in so far as its unclear how these people came to achieve their material status. These boats dont say "Investment Banker" or "Trust Fund" or even "Heroine Dealer." All wealth is materially present and rated based upon not its legitimacy, but by its presentation in toys and the ability to play.
Wealth is transfered to other goods, and the quality of those goods earns you esteem and presence on the lake. But you need not be the wealthiest of all lake residents to reap great benefits. Simply renting a dock from a resort comes with pool access and fitness center privileges. There's a fairly high threshold, but once you get over that threshold, and however you chose to do so, you become a part of the material exchange on the lake.
All this is not to be a normative judgement on people who own yachts or have lake houses. I am not of the opinion that wealth translates to an immediate disdain for the non-wealthy and a massive amount of greediness. Clearly that is not the case. Instead, I make these observations precisely because it is so easy to lose the human narratives amidst all the material display. With current talk of the dept ceiling debate, I see many people on the left demonizing the wealthy as a group. Make no mistake, I think an end to the Bush era tax cuts is imperative and I am deeply disappointed with Obama for having extended them at all. But there's a very big difference between thinking that tax structures must change and demonizing people who have achieved material well-being.
I believe that the wealthy are only wealthy because of the society in which they exist has allowed them to be so. Most of them worked hard and achieved greatly, but fundamentally we all extract from this country to one degree or another. And there are many, many more people who are excluded from this kind of life not because they are "lazy, social welfare draining" but because there are many, complex factors that have merged and worked upon these individuals. I am horrified when I hear people blame the poor for their fortunes, and I am disappointed when people demonize the wealthy. Nothing is simple, and the current talk of different socio-economic groups plays out as though it were.
Of course, its not easy to talk about this and not remember the crippling poverty that exists everywhere. And its hard to not look around here and think that there are people looking for a meal right now with no degree of certainty that they will find it. And in this debt ceiling debate I know that there are many wealthy people who have a strong hold of the discourse while the future of the economy hangs in the balance. Still, it helps no one to sit around and think that the rich guy on his Ozarks yacht is plotting against the poor. It just makes me feel lame because I'm lucky if I can afford new shoes.
What's so amazing about this experience isn't just the fact that I'm on a yacht and spend my days swimming, hiking, and cruising the lake all day. That's all great, but what is really amazing is the fact that I get to take a look, however briefly, into a completely different world than my own. See, I am by no stretch of the imagination a wealthy person. My parents have one house, three pretty standard cars, and we don't indulge in too much. I am a soon-to-be graduate student. So this yacht may be the only yacht I am ever on unless I decide to do an ethnography on wealthy trust-fund kids on residential lakes.
This is a world governed by a strange mix of concealed and present wealth. It is obviously present because everywhere along this lake there are massive homes with fake palm trees sitting outside and a mega-yacht followed by kids spinning around on wave-runners. And they must see us on the yacht and just simply accept that we are the kind of people who own a yacht. But the wealth is concealed in so far as its unclear how these people came to achieve their material status. These boats dont say "Investment Banker" or "Trust Fund" or even "Heroine Dealer." All wealth is materially present and rated based upon not its legitimacy, but by its presentation in toys and the ability to play.
Wealth is transfered to other goods, and the quality of those goods earns you esteem and presence on the lake. But you need not be the wealthiest of all lake residents to reap great benefits. Simply renting a dock from a resort comes with pool access and fitness center privileges. There's a fairly high threshold, but once you get over that threshold, and however you chose to do so, you become a part of the material exchange on the lake.
All this is not to be a normative judgement on people who own yachts or have lake houses. I am not of the opinion that wealth translates to an immediate disdain for the non-wealthy and a massive amount of greediness. Clearly that is not the case. Instead, I make these observations precisely because it is so easy to lose the human narratives amidst all the material display. With current talk of the dept ceiling debate, I see many people on the left demonizing the wealthy as a group. Make no mistake, I think an end to the Bush era tax cuts is imperative and I am deeply disappointed with Obama for having extended them at all. But there's a very big difference between thinking that tax structures must change and demonizing people who have achieved material well-being.
I believe that the wealthy are only wealthy because of the society in which they exist has allowed them to be so. Most of them worked hard and achieved greatly, but fundamentally we all extract from this country to one degree or another. And there are many, many more people who are excluded from this kind of life not because they are "lazy, social welfare draining" but because there are many, complex factors that have merged and worked upon these individuals. I am horrified when I hear people blame the poor for their fortunes, and I am disappointed when people demonize the wealthy. Nothing is simple, and the current talk of different socio-economic groups plays out as though it were.
Of course, its not easy to talk about this and not remember the crippling poverty that exists everywhere. And its hard to not look around here and think that there are people looking for a meal right now with no degree of certainty that they will find it. And in this debt ceiling debate I know that there are many wealthy people who have a strong hold of the discourse while the future of the economy hangs in the balance. Still, it helps no one to sit around and think that the rich guy on his Ozarks yacht is plotting against the poor. It just makes me feel lame because I'm lucky if I can afford new shoes.
Friday, July 8, 2011
They Thinly Veil their Hatreds
Facebook has really become my place to look for blog ideas, and today I want to write about something a future classmate of mine posted yesterday. It has to do with the ways in which xenophobia and racism can become failed behind a veil of legitimacy. It has to do with the ways in which some people actively try to conceal their more horrible hatreds so as to infiltrate public discourse.
A little background first, though. A few days ago, NPR ran a story on José Antonio Vargas, a writer and journalist who came forward publicly in The New York Times about being an undocumented immigrant from the Philippines. Vargas' admission came on the heels of the Dream Acts failure (Vargas himself was brought over by his parents as a child, and he went through his formal education and life here in the US). Of course there are reactions to this from all sides, as Vargas himself most likely intended. People who heard the story were stimulated to think about immigration and the life of immigrants very seriously. But my intention is not to comment on immigration.
Instead, I wanted to talk about one, specific reaction that received air time that really shouldn't have. My Facebook friend posted this story from NPR entitled "Why Jose Antonio Vargas Should Leave the U.S." The article itself was, thankfully, not an editorial from NPR staffers, but was instead an interview with a man named Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). So far so good? Wrong. From this NPR interview alone there are things to find wrong with Krikorian's rhetoric. For me, the problems started with this little gem:
This alone was enough to upset me. I mean, it is seriously upsetting that there is a serious organization that sets out with an agenda against immigration but that creates this paper thin arguments that actually disqualify many American citizens. But then it got worse. It got much, much worse. The same friend who posted the NPR article later posted this link to a Southern Poverty Law Center- an organization that has worked at tracking groups with anti-minority and anti-immigration agendas. The SPLC writes:
What is so upsetting is the way CIS actually postures itself as a legitimate organization working on some issue or problem and releases "studies" and various other "research projects." See, the CIS bills itself as legitimate and appeals to the power real research institutions wield in the eyes of the public (ok, so maybe the average person pays little attention to think tanks). But still, here is a strongly and demonstrably xenophobic organization. Research and serious scholarship is not the aim of the organization: pushing its anti-immigrant and highly nativist agenda is. By hiding behind the title of a think tank and disavowing its connections to its partner organizations who are much more overtly xenophobic, the CIS hopes to find legitimacy in the eyes of the public. And, unfortunately, NPR gave them exactly that legitimacy.
Thankfully, the NPR article did not try to make CIS out to be a powerful or influential organization. But still, the CIS tarnishes what it is research institutions should be. They shield the more ugly aspects of their racism behind the guise of legitimacy and work their way into the public eye. And for this they deserve nothing but scorn and disrepute. I want to leave this post with one, final quote from the SPLC article, which highlights just what is wrong with the CIS. We need to be very wary of the experts we listen to. Some deserve our respect and attention. Others simply deserve to be exposed for all their lies.
A little background first, though. A few days ago, NPR ran a story on José Antonio Vargas, a writer and journalist who came forward publicly in The New York Times about being an undocumented immigrant from the Philippines. Vargas' admission came on the heels of the Dream Acts failure (Vargas himself was brought over by his parents as a child, and he went through his formal education and life here in the US). Of course there are reactions to this from all sides, as Vargas himself most likely intended. People who heard the story were stimulated to think about immigration and the life of immigrants very seriously. But my intention is not to comment on immigration.
Instead, I wanted to talk about one, specific reaction that received air time that really shouldn't have. My Facebook friend posted this story from NPR entitled "Why Jose Antonio Vargas Should Leave the U.S." The article itself was, thankfully, not an editorial from NPR staffers, but was instead an interview with a man named Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). So far so good? Wrong. From this NPR interview alone there are things to find wrong with Krikorian's rhetoric. For me, the problems started with this little gem:
"The moral case that you can make for the Dream Act — or something like the Dream Act ... really only applies, it seems to me, to people whose identities have been formed here, who have no memory of any other country, who really are — as some of the advocates sometimes put it — are Americans in all but paperwork,"Now, what has me very upset here is two things. Firstly, it is a statement that pretends to defend what a "true American" is and thus define it along some specified line. Secondly, part of this line is that people have "no memory of any other country" which is a remarkably dense thing to say. I was born and raised here, and still I have strong affections for my father's home country of Mexico. And, mind you, my father is a US citizen who also has strong affections for (and family in) Mexico. Are we not really American? Clearly its already difficult for me to take anything this man says seriously. So when I read that the CIS is "a think tank that advocates a 'low immigration, high enforcement' immigration policy" I can't help but read that as the workings of a strongly nativist organization rather than a serious think tank.
This alone was enough to upset me. I mean, it is seriously upsetting that there is a serious organization that sets out with an agenda against immigration but that creates this paper thin arguments that actually disqualify many American citizens. But then it got worse. It got much, much worse. The same friend who posted the NPR article later posted this link to a Southern Poverty Law Center- an organization that has worked at tracking groups with anti-minority and anti-immigration agendas. The SPLC writes:
showing that, at the very least, the CIS has some rather dubious origins. The article goes on to reveal how unsavory the CIS really is and, for me, invalidates the CIS as a "think tank." Before, I strongly disagreed with Krikorian and his piss-poor logic. Now I disagree with the very existence of his organization.
Although the think tank bills itself as an "independent" organization with a "pro-immigrant" if "low-immigration" vision, the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked.
There's a reason for that. Although you'd never know it to read its materials, CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials. CIS' creation was part of a carefully thought-out strategy aimed at creating a set of complementary institutions to cultivate the nativist cause — groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA.
What is so upsetting is the way CIS actually postures itself as a legitimate organization working on some issue or problem and releases "studies" and various other "research projects." See, the CIS bills itself as legitimate and appeals to the power real research institutions wield in the eyes of the public (ok, so maybe the average person pays little attention to think tanks). But still, here is a strongly and demonstrably xenophobic organization. Research and serious scholarship is not the aim of the organization: pushing its anti-immigrant and highly nativist agenda is. By hiding behind the title of a think tank and disavowing its connections to its partner organizations who are much more overtly xenophobic, the CIS hopes to find legitimacy in the eyes of the public. And, unfortunately, NPR gave them exactly that legitimacy.
Thankfully, the NPR article did not try to make CIS out to be a powerful or influential organization. But still, the CIS tarnishes what it is research institutions should be. They shield the more ugly aspects of their racism behind the guise of legitimacy and work their way into the public eye. And for this they deserve nothing but scorn and disrepute. I want to leave this post with one, final quote from the SPLC article, which highlights just what is wrong with the CIS. We need to be very wary of the experts we listen to. Some deserve our respect and attention. Others simply deserve to be exposed for all their lies.
CIS makes much of its mainstream credentials, saying it seeks "to expand the base of public knowledge" in an effort to show the need for immigration policies that serve "the broad national interest." And indeed, CIS' website shows that it has testified to Congress close to 100 times since Krikorian took over in 1995.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
And All the Heads on TV...
Network news is very strange beast, and one that seemed to have simply emerged without much ado. I grew accustomed my first two years of college to watching morning news roundups on MSNBC, keeping in mind the pretty obvious bias. These morning news shows were about routine for me. They fit in nicely with my two cups of coffee and my refusal to prepare for the day. But after my second year I keyed in to something fairly upsetting.
There's is absolutely nothing wrong with having opinions, and I think that is fairly self-evident. But I see a pretty big problem with the packaging of opinion and then televising it on a news network ad nauseam. At first, I thought these shows were really fascinating. There was something exciting about people who were "analyzing" news stories and broadcasting debates surrounding key issues. Yes, their analysis was always heavily bent one way or the other, but still I watched. At least these issues were being talked about, and at least it was something to distract me from hours of Toddlers in Tiaras or these shows about families with way too many kids.
But the thing is, these talking heads are married to bias in such a way that they begin to warp the audience. See, I think we, as people, love to hear people who agree with our point of view. As they continue to speak with authority they confirm all of our opinions, and thus we begin to manufacture truth. Objective, immutable truth that must be defended against everyone else who has been given falsehoods. And this process feeds back into the political discourse that we have today, so marred with vitriol and half-truths that it is eroding away at any hope of having a functioning civil society (if such a thing has ever existed).
News sources are always biased. I think this is fairly uncontroversial. But with printed news sources or televised reporting, the bias is subtle and unobtrusive, most of the time. The New York Times is a liberal piece of journalism, but it reports on the facts. Though factual errors are found from time to time, this is not unique to the Times. And we are not feed opinions in the reporting section. We can chose to read the Op-Ed pieces or we can chose to ignore them. And while this is true with news networks (the remote does still grant us dominion) the Op-Ed aspect is much more prevalent and much more central to the product being sold.
It is true, and I will not try to argue otherwise, that right-wing biased commentators upset me more than left-wingers. I'm a liberal, and like all people I find it much easier to listen to people who I agree with or can access their arguments without much effort. But I do engage in listening to conservative commentators and I try to empathize. Its difficult, and tiring, but necessary. The problem is, I see people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh as being far more vitriolic than their counterparts on the left. Though, it may be because their counter parts are much less prominent. And it doesn't help that views of Fox News are shown to be some of the most misinformed news consumers in the country. And I can't help but think that this is the result of the viewers being who they are but more because Fox News, like so many other networks, has given up on selling factual content or competing views of news topics, and has decided that the road of least resistance is the most marketable. Unfortunately, it looks like they are right.
See, there is no question that factual errors happen, but its one thing when the factual error is confined to a reporting of facts and another when its happens and there has been a highly charged string of rhetoric surrounding that error. It has happened repeatedly, and yet is has not diminished the allure of these network channels. No matter how many controversies or horrible verbal missteps, people keep coming back to them, and they continue to build their worldview from these little frames.
I have tried to venture away from mainstream media and watch programs like Democracy Now! which are to a high degree better than the sleeker, cable options. But still, something unnerves me about the way news is transmitted now. Perhaps its because, as a result of these talking heads proliferating, all news sources suddenly become sites of attack and a black mark upon whoever admits to listening/watching a particular source. As an example, I listen to NPR and visit their website daily. I enjoy their radioshows, and I like the news service that is offered by the station. But earlier this year, NPR was the target of right-wing anger because of its liberal bias and because it received federal money. Mind you, I saw very few arguments about things NPR was saying and far more ad hominem reasoning. But still, it put me in an uncomfortable position because my refusal to see this argument against NPR immediately marked me as an enemy.
What ever happened to letting a guy watch the news?
There's is absolutely nothing wrong with having opinions, and I think that is fairly self-evident. But I see a pretty big problem with the packaging of opinion and then televising it on a news network ad nauseam. At first, I thought these shows were really fascinating. There was something exciting about people who were "analyzing" news stories and broadcasting debates surrounding key issues. Yes, their analysis was always heavily bent one way or the other, but still I watched. At least these issues were being talked about, and at least it was something to distract me from hours of Toddlers in Tiaras or these shows about families with way too many kids.
But the thing is, these talking heads are married to bias in such a way that they begin to warp the audience. See, I think we, as people, love to hear people who agree with our point of view. As they continue to speak with authority they confirm all of our opinions, and thus we begin to manufacture truth. Objective, immutable truth that must be defended against everyone else who has been given falsehoods. And this process feeds back into the political discourse that we have today, so marred with vitriol and half-truths that it is eroding away at any hope of having a functioning civil society (if such a thing has ever existed).
News sources are always biased. I think this is fairly uncontroversial. But with printed news sources or televised reporting, the bias is subtle and unobtrusive, most of the time. The New York Times is a liberal piece of journalism, but it reports on the facts. Though factual errors are found from time to time, this is not unique to the Times. And we are not feed opinions in the reporting section. We can chose to read the Op-Ed pieces or we can chose to ignore them. And while this is true with news networks (the remote does still grant us dominion) the Op-Ed aspect is much more prevalent and much more central to the product being sold.
It is true, and I will not try to argue otherwise, that right-wing biased commentators upset me more than left-wingers. I'm a liberal, and like all people I find it much easier to listen to people who I agree with or can access their arguments without much effort. But I do engage in listening to conservative commentators and I try to empathize. Its difficult, and tiring, but necessary. The problem is, I see people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh as being far more vitriolic than their counterparts on the left. Though, it may be because their counter parts are much less prominent. And it doesn't help that views of Fox News are shown to be some of the most misinformed news consumers in the country. And I can't help but think that this is the result of the viewers being who they are but more because Fox News, like so many other networks, has given up on selling factual content or competing views of news topics, and has decided that the road of least resistance is the most marketable. Unfortunately, it looks like they are right.
See, there is no question that factual errors happen, but its one thing when the factual error is confined to a reporting of facts and another when its happens and there has been a highly charged string of rhetoric surrounding that error. It has happened repeatedly, and yet is has not diminished the allure of these network channels. No matter how many controversies or horrible verbal missteps, people keep coming back to them, and they continue to build their worldview from these little frames.
I have tried to venture away from mainstream media and watch programs like Democracy Now! which are to a high degree better than the sleeker, cable options. But still, something unnerves me about the way news is transmitted now. Perhaps its because, as a result of these talking heads proliferating, all news sources suddenly become sites of attack and a black mark upon whoever admits to listening/watching a particular source. As an example, I listen to NPR and visit their website daily. I enjoy their radioshows, and I like the news service that is offered by the station. But earlier this year, NPR was the target of right-wing anger because of its liberal bias and because it received federal money. Mind you, I saw very few arguments about things NPR was saying and far more ad hominem reasoning. But still, it put me in an uncomfortable position because my refusal to see this argument against NPR immediately marked me as an enemy.
What ever happened to letting a guy watch the news?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Consumption of Scandal
A friend of mine on Facebook shared this link of a woman being arrested in Arizona with me the other day. Rather than restating the story, I'll liberally quote from this source so that you all have some sense of what is happening.
The ability to speak out during municipal government meetings is, I believe, a corner stone to a healthy and vibrant democratic republic. Often times, it is lamentable that so few people participate in municipal government- and when they do we unfortunately have incidents like this being the only discernable highlight (or, more accurately, lowlight). And, unfortunately, it is difficult for me to parcel out the current political climate in this country from what I see in this video.
Politics, I believe we can all agree, has become an incredibly polarized affair where one side is opposed to the government as a matter of principal while the other is seen to be firmly in bed with the government. There is a false dichotomy and one that muddies legitimate political discussion, and it is also one that has elevated tensions between factions of political actors in this country. So, when I saw this incident happen I could not help but put it before this backdrop of American political discourse. Tensions are high, and people make errors of judgement when that is the case.
Now, I mentioned the glaring lack of news coverage for two reasons. First, it allows for some of the more unsavory aspects of Internet culture to rear its ugly head. Conspiracy Theorists have already begun to declare that this is evidence of some grand, dictatorial conspiracy manufactured by the "elites." I have remarkably little patience for this nonsense, and when I see gems like this in the comments section:
To me, from the content of this video, it appears clear to me that the mayor was perhaps the only public official doing his job (if he was doing so because the woman agreed with him rather than the council on an issue, I do not know) and that the police officers were only carrying out their duty, if a little too zealously. Furthermore, I would not be surprised that if, in this case, the council members where experience a high degree of stress and subsequently acting out of overly-defensive mindsets. That does not excuse their actions in the slightest.
It may also be key to remember, for those who feel like this situation is only newly found in this time and age, that the Internet has only allowed instances like this to be known to a broader audience. Before YouTube, this blog post about this particular case in Arizona would be highly unlikely. And before telecommunications had reached this level, how many cases like this transpired and nothing about them was known outside their immediacy? Yes, it is a key assest to be able to witness these kinds of events and to speak of them, directly. But I fear that this blessing comes with a curse- one where people can witness every error made everywhere, but consume it faster than they can think. This should be an opportunity to think about how we relate to our elected officials, and how those officials now operate in an environment of almost constant attack in a highly polarized fashion. Now, maybe these council members really are particularly dense and foolish. I don't know, and that's precisely my point. I can consume this video before I can think- before I can gather all the information I need. All I can assume is that tensions were high, and these council members failed their duties to their constituents in a very fundamental way.
But aside from this speculation, I don't want to speak to much about this situation because I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the events of that night or the context of that meeting. What does seem clear, if things are as they appear, is that this woman's outcome was not the result of illegal behavior on her part, but of over defensive public officials who reacted too sharply. And for that, I would think they would lose their positions. That is, assuming municipal governance has an importance in the minds of the people whom it serves.
UPDATE: After a little more searching, I found this video of a woman being arrested at a council meeting in the same town of Quartzsite Arizona on April 19th, 2011. The woman in this video's name is Jennifer Jade Harriss Jones (or Jennifer Marie Jones in this much longer video). The woman in the video I linked at the top of this post is Jennifer Jones. My assumption is that these two women are one in the same, though I am not totally certain. At this point, nothing changes about what I said in the above post, but what does change is a question of the circumstance leading into the events depicted in the original video posted here. This ambiguity of information does nothing to ease the latent tensions everywhere, and continue to promote a high degree of distrust. Especially when you read the posts on this version of the video. It is possible that this woman has been a repeated disruption to town meetings in the past, though I do not believe this excuses the behavior of the council in the slightest. In fact, there appears to be a long list of complaints against the way the Quartzsite city council has been treating the public.
Jennifer Jones (Jade, Marie, Harriss- at this point I can't keep track) is apparently the publisher of the Desert Freedom Press and has been known to be arrested repeatedly. Now, if the links are getting a bit confusing at this point, I apologize. My attempt here is to demonstrate that my original point was to be very cautious before laying any sort of claim about the situation that occurred, but to also find and implore context when reacting to the video. There is a great deal of political uncertainty in Quartzsite Arizona, and I hope that people will carefully read what is available before jumping to conclusions. It is my opinion that there is more than enough evidence of wrong-doing by the council members, and that Jones has put herself right at the heart of the controversy. For more information visit here. As for my part, I think the section above the update speaks for itself.
Against the mayor's orders, and the rules of parliamentary procedure, the police officers attempt to wrestle the microphone out of her hands before she goes into detail, only stopping when the mayor is literally yelling at them. When the officers finally stop manhandling her, the council then attempts to make a motion to kick her out, which isn't possible since you cannot make motions while people are talking, but the police take her out anyways.Now, this is surely not the first time we have seen a public speaker be handled by police in a controversial manner. What is striking to me in the Arizona case is the fact that, according to the above source, procedure had been freely manipulated by members of the council and that the woman had been taken away despite the mayor himself protesting. You can hear the mayor standing up for the woman even as the city council members vote to have her removed. What is further troubling, to me, is that news searches don't retrieve any relevant hits (as of yet). So, the situation is this: we have a video in which it is very clear to see what is immediately happening during the time of the incident and little commentary or analysis of the situation. This doesn't sit well with me.
The ability to speak out during municipal government meetings is, I believe, a corner stone to a healthy and vibrant democratic republic. Often times, it is lamentable that so few people participate in municipal government- and when they do we unfortunately have incidents like this being the only discernable highlight (or, more accurately, lowlight). And, unfortunately, it is difficult for me to parcel out the current political climate in this country from what I see in this video.
Politics, I believe we can all agree, has become an incredibly polarized affair where one side is opposed to the government as a matter of principal while the other is seen to be firmly in bed with the government. There is a false dichotomy and one that muddies legitimate political discussion, and it is also one that has elevated tensions between factions of political actors in this country. So, when I saw this incident happen I could not help but put it before this backdrop of American political discourse. Tensions are high, and people make errors of judgement when that is the case.
Now, I mentioned the glaring lack of news coverage for two reasons. First, it allows for some of the more unsavory aspects of Internet culture to rear its ugly head. Conspiracy Theorists have already begun to declare that this is evidence of some grand, dictatorial conspiracy manufactured by the "elites." I have remarkably little patience for this nonsense, and when I see gems like this in the comments section:
I can't help but lose hope that people will see at the heart of this matter. This was not the product of some grand movement in this country towards fascism or whatever other foolishness people want to conjure up. No, as far as I can tell, this was firmly part of human error that is borne of a poor and disappointing political discourse at large. Without careful, thoughtful analysis this situation is not taken as a reminder of these tensions but rather given as fodder to those who poison discourse either with conspiratorial thinking or with polarizing rhetoric. There should be more of a reaction to this instance, in Arizona at least, than there is. But this youtube commenter clearly wants only to continue the unhealthy environment that engenders these kinds of outcomes in the first place.
why is there not an uprising? She was following rules of the meeting, was recognized on the floor, was not defaming, only stating.Fucking WAKE UP sheeple. This is an embarrassment to us all as Americans and a slander on the first amendment right o free speech.The ONLY thing she may have done wrong was to turn her back on the council to address the assembly directly.
To me, from the content of this video, it appears clear to me that the mayor was perhaps the only public official doing his job (if he was doing so because the woman agreed with him rather than the council on an issue, I do not know) and that the police officers were only carrying out their duty, if a little too zealously. Furthermore, I would not be surprised that if, in this case, the council members where experience a high degree of stress and subsequently acting out of overly-defensive mindsets. That does not excuse their actions in the slightest.
It may also be key to remember, for those who feel like this situation is only newly found in this time and age, that the Internet has only allowed instances like this to be known to a broader audience. Before YouTube, this blog post about this particular case in Arizona would be highly unlikely. And before telecommunications had reached this level, how many cases like this transpired and nothing about them was known outside their immediacy? Yes, it is a key assest to be able to witness these kinds of events and to speak of them, directly. But I fear that this blessing comes with a curse- one where people can witness every error made everywhere, but consume it faster than they can think. This should be an opportunity to think about how we relate to our elected officials, and how those officials now operate in an environment of almost constant attack in a highly polarized fashion. Now, maybe these council members really are particularly dense and foolish. I don't know, and that's precisely my point. I can consume this video before I can think- before I can gather all the information I need. All I can assume is that tensions were high, and these council members failed their duties to their constituents in a very fundamental way.
But aside from this speculation, I don't want to speak to much about this situation because I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the events of that night or the context of that meeting. What does seem clear, if things are as they appear, is that this woman's outcome was not the result of illegal behavior on her part, but of over defensive public officials who reacted too sharply. And for that, I would think they would lose their positions. That is, assuming municipal governance has an importance in the minds of the people whom it serves.
UPDATE: After a little more searching, I found this video of a woman being arrested at a council meeting in the same town of Quartzsite Arizona on April 19th, 2011. The woman in this video's name is Jennifer Jade Harriss Jones (or Jennifer Marie Jones in this much longer video). The woman in the video I linked at the top of this post is Jennifer Jones. My assumption is that these two women are one in the same, though I am not totally certain. At this point, nothing changes about what I said in the above post, but what does change is a question of the circumstance leading into the events depicted in the original video posted here. This ambiguity of information does nothing to ease the latent tensions everywhere, and continue to promote a high degree of distrust. Especially when you read the posts on this version of the video. It is possible that this woman has been a repeated disruption to town meetings in the past, though I do not believe this excuses the behavior of the council in the slightest. In fact, there appears to be a long list of complaints against the way the Quartzsite city council has been treating the public.
Jennifer Jones (Jade, Marie, Harriss- at this point I can't keep track) is apparently the publisher of the Desert Freedom Press and has been known to be arrested repeatedly. Now, if the links are getting a bit confusing at this point, I apologize. My attempt here is to demonstrate that my original point was to be very cautious before laying any sort of claim about the situation that occurred, but to also find and implore context when reacting to the video. There is a great deal of political uncertainty in Quartzsite Arizona, and I hope that people will carefully read what is available before jumping to conclusions. It is my opinion that there is more than enough evidence of wrong-doing by the council members, and that Jones has put herself right at the heart of the controversy. For more information visit here. As for my part, I think the section above the update speaks for itself.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Two Hundred and Thirty-Five
There is much to be anxious about. Uncertainty is everywhere, and the government continues to struggle to reach a solution to an impending debt ceiling crash. Politicians and educators have ended their speeches with cautions that the challenges we face are real, and they are difficult. They continue to assert, however, that there is much that we can do. There is no problem we cannot overcome.
I don't know what my role in all of this is. I am uncertain how much I believe that I can do to solve this country's problems or to lead it anywhere. A career in politics has been thoroughly dismissed years ago. And I wouldn't say I'm an overly patriotic person. I love living in the United States not as a result of some belief in this country's infallibility or because of its tremendous prosperity. I love living in the United States because it is home, and because it has allowed me to be who I am. I owe a great deal to American society, because it was through it and with it that I have been able to define my world and react to it. Because I was born and raised in the United States I have been given tremendous opportunity, and to me the Fourth of July is a reminder not to blow it and to remember that there are many more after me who deserve the same opportunities that I had. If for no other reason, this is why the Fourth is so important to me.
When I was in Europe I was made very aware of my own American identity. Sometimes I was ascribed an American identity that wasn't really mine. A woman on the U-Bahn in Berlin approached my girlfriend and I and immediately began asking about God and religion because, to her, Americans are all very religious people. I'm not religious at all. I believe in God, and I have my own views on God, but I am not religious. In London (Or Colchester) a young man stood agape at my accent and then proceeded to tell me how much he wanted to go to the United States and see the cowboy-hat wearing Americans. I've never owned a cowboy hat in my life. Sombrero, yes, cowboy hat, no.
From the outside, America must appear to be much more homogenous than we really are. I have no doubt that foreigners understand some of the deep political gaps that exist in this country, but I don't know how much this country appears to be one continuous whole. I don't think America works because we have one unifying force. I think we all believe in something implicit and incapable of being properly articulated, but often times we all have different visions of this country and our common life. What holds this country together, so to speak, is far more complicated than anything I can properly describe. But still, in this country we do certainly have some unifying forces that make it possible for us to be "We the people."
I've been reading the news a lot in lieu of doing any course reading, and every story I read I wonder how others are processing this information. I know there are people who read about the debt crisis and think of it only in quotation marks. At the same time, I know there are people who read it with a fluttering in their chest with the fear that our American life, in material terms, is about to flip about. Its really unclear how I feel about the whole thing, only that I am very aware of our dysfunctions now. What America will look like by year's end is uncertain, but I happen to think that, when its all said and done, there are some slightly more immutable aspects to American life than our economic system and material life.
This is all far too timely, and its much too nebulous to be anything of note, but its something I felt like talking about. Maybe one day I'll look back on my own country and ask of it the hard questions I will be asking of others. Even then, I very much doubt I will have the essence of American life written down anywhere, but at least I will have tried.
In any event, today we're going to celebrate America in both profoundly superficial ways (no foreign beer for me today, thank you!) and maybe take a moment to reflect on some of the things happening in this country- both the good and the bad. So here I am, in a strange state far from home, celebrating America with a crappy blogpost. Happy Fourth of July. Try to keep all your fingers on your hands.
I don't know what my role in all of this is. I am uncertain how much I believe that I can do to solve this country's problems or to lead it anywhere. A career in politics has been thoroughly dismissed years ago. And I wouldn't say I'm an overly patriotic person. I love living in the United States not as a result of some belief in this country's infallibility or because of its tremendous prosperity. I love living in the United States because it is home, and because it has allowed me to be who I am. I owe a great deal to American society, because it was through it and with it that I have been able to define my world and react to it. Because I was born and raised in the United States I have been given tremendous opportunity, and to me the Fourth of July is a reminder not to blow it and to remember that there are many more after me who deserve the same opportunities that I had. If for no other reason, this is why the Fourth is so important to me.
When I was in Europe I was made very aware of my own American identity. Sometimes I was ascribed an American identity that wasn't really mine. A woman on the U-Bahn in Berlin approached my girlfriend and I and immediately began asking about God and religion because, to her, Americans are all very religious people. I'm not religious at all. I believe in God, and I have my own views on God, but I am not religious. In London (Or Colchester) a young man stood agape at my accent and then proceeded to tell me how much he wanted to go to the United States and see the cowboy-hat wearing Americans. I've never owned a cowboy hat in my life. Sombrero, yes, cowboy hat, no.
From the outside, America must appear to be much more homogenous than we really are. I have no doubt that foreigners understand some of the deep political gaps that exist in this country, but I don't know how much this country appears to be one continuous whole. I don't think America works because we have one unifying force. I think we all believe in something implicit and incapable of being properly articulated, but often times we all have different visions of this country and our common life. What holds this country together, so to speak, is far more complicated than anything I can properly describe. But still, in this country we do certainly have some unifying forces that make it possible for us to be "We the people."
I've been reading the news a lot in lieu of doing any course reading, and every story I read I wonder how others are processing this information. I know there are people who read about the debt crisis and think of it only in quotation marks. At the same time, I know there are people who read it with a fluttering in their chest with the fear that our American life, in material terms, is about to flip about. Its really unclear how I feel about the whole thing, only that I am very aware of our dysfunctions now. What America will look like by year's end is uncertain, but I happen to think that, when its all said and done, there are some slightly more immutable aspects to American life than our economic system and material life.
This is all far too timely, and its much too nebulous to be anything of note, but its something I felt like talking about. Maybe one day I'll look back on my own country and ask of it the hard questions I will be asking of others. Even then, I very much doubt I will have the essence of American life written down anywhere, but at least I will have tried.
In any event, today we're going to celebrate America in both profoundly superficial ways (no foreign beer for me today, thank you!) and maybe take a moment to reflect on some of the things happening in this country- both the good and the bad. So here I am, in a strange state far from home, celebrating America with a crappy blogpost. Happy Fourth of July. Try to keep all your fingers on your hands.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Lake Life
The heat here in Western Missouri is fairly obscene. Actually, its grotesquely obscene. But irrespective of this fact I have come to really begin to appreciate living on the lake in a new way. Typically, my stays in Lotawana have been very short and filled with as much water skiing and lake activities as possible. But with a month of time on my hands, I have taken things much slower this time.
This has, however, lead to an unusual position for me. On the one hand, I have slid too much into daily habits of being 'home.' I am not overly eager to wake up because there is no pressure to sieze the day in any meaningful sense. Instead, I sit around most mornings far too committed to my computer or day dreaming. I look out over the lake and enjoy the relative quiet of life out here, but I am not animate in the world. Part of that is due to the heat, but part of it is do to what I see as a tendency to become a creature of habit almost instantly.
But on the other hand, living here begins to fulfill another side to me that I often do not embrace or exhibit. I love being outdoors and engaging with my world- though I must often force myself out the door in order to do so. Last night I ventured out to investigate what I thought was a boat jacking, and after realizing all was well, I looked up. Stars. A multitude of stars I hadn't seen in such a long time that I had come to disregard them as central to this world. But in peering up through the shadowy impressions of trees and rooftops, I recognized an old but very aloof friend.
I have lived and loved the city for four years now, and though I will return to it as a field of study, I hope that I may maintain a place "away from it all." What "it" is I don't really know, since wherever you are, an "it" can be found. But what I want is the ability to step back from our light-flooded world and enter a kind of false frontier. A place where it appears that nature and human habitat are truly facing each other and all one must do is simply cross a thin line to traverse the two worlds.
Still, I'm too connected to all of this Internet nonsense. I'll readily admit it, even if I don't immediately fix it. I have an expectation that at any moment something critical and important will happen that demands my immediate response. But 99.99% of tweets don't demand my reading. 99.99% of facebook notifications aren't important (unless you count all those farmville requests- those things are critical) but still I wait. And wait. I think that being at the lake has really brought home just how overly connected I am, and the importance of doing something outside of Internet procrastination.
With a long camping trip ahead of me, I hope that I can satisfy this need to be out and away from my habits.
P.S. I have been working my way through all the Harry Potter movies in anticipation of the final film's release. I have to say, I did not like Prisoner of Azkaban much at all. </nerd>
This has, however, lead to an unusual position for me. On the one hand, I have slid too much into daily habits of being 'home.' I am not overly eager to wake up because there is no pressure to sieze the day in any meaningful sense. Instead, I sit around most mornings far too committed to my computer or day dreaming. I look out over the lake and enjoy the relative quiet of life out here, but I am not animate in the world. Part of that is due to the heat, but part of it is do to what I see as a tendency to become a creature of habit almost instantly.
But on the other hand, living here begins to fulfill another side to me that I often do not embrace or exhibit. I love being outdoors and engaging with my world- though I must often force myself out the door in order to do so. Last night I ventured out to investigate what I thought was a boat jacking, and after realizing all was well, I looked up. Stars. A multitude of stars I hadn't seen in such a long time that I had come to disregard them as central to this world. But in peering up through the shadowy impressions of trees and rooftops, I recognized an old but very aloof friend.
I have lived and loved the city for four years now, and though I will return to it as a field of study, I hope that I may maintain a place "away from it all." What "it" is I don't really know, since wherever you are, an "it" can be found. But what I want is the ability to step back from our light-flooded world and enter a kind of false frontier. A place where it appears that nature and human habitat are truly facing each other and all one must do is simply cross a thin line to traverse the two worlds.
Still, I'm too connected to all of this Internet nonsense. I'll readily admit it, even if I don't immediately fix it. I have an expectation that at any moment something critical and important will happen that demands my immediate response. But 99.99% of tweets don't demand my reading. 99.99% of facebook notifications aren't important (unless you count all those farmville requests- those things are critical) but still I wait. And wait. I think that being at the lake has really brought home just how overly connected I am, and the importance of doing something outside of Internet procrastination.
With a long camping trip ahead of me, I hope that I can satisfy this need to be out and away from my habits.
P.S. I have been working my way through all the Harry Potter movies in anticipation of the final film's release. I have to say, I did not like Prisoner of Azkaban much at all. </nerd>
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)