A week ago I got the go-ahead to explore creating a single-event blog for the newspaper. The concept calls for a team blog that would post bits from more than a dozen reporters, editors and reviewers involved in covering a three-week international arts festival here in town.
It would be the paper's first formal step into the blogosphere.
Yesterday I got to spend about 40 minutes on the phone with Lex Alexander, picking his brain for ideas on blog management from a newspaper perspective. One of the big questions for me is what platform to recommend.
Since this would be a team blog with multiple novice bloggers logging in from various computers and locations, I ruled out Radio Userland and resident blog clients in general. I want something where the interface lives online.
Andy Rhinehart pointed out I could set the whole thing up via Blogger and still shift the domain name. But while the price is right, I'm not hot to push that option: Yes, blogger's interface is simple, but uploading images isn't, and I don't want to have to install Hello! on all the boxes in the newsroom (besides, I can't make "bloggerbot" work on my home box, anyway). Besides that, blogger has been having some uptime issues lately: note the double post below, not to mention the fact that it wouldn't let me log in this morning.
Andy had good things to say about Movable Type and Six Apart's web-hosted "typepad" platform. I really like what I've seen from typepad, too -- some of my favorite blogs are typepad blogs. It also appears to solve the image issue with direct uploads.
The News and Record uses Movable Type for its inhouse blogs, running the software on an internal server. That may be a bit of a stretch for my paper right now, but it does serve as another endorsement, of sorts, for the typepad option.
Any other suggestions from you guys before I set up a sit-down with our web staff?
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Got My Mojo Workin'
Dave Winer, in an act of valuable public service, has posted the lyrics to "Got My Mojo Workin'" here.
This cleared up some decades-old misconceptions for me. For instance, I had interpreted the line "I got some red-hot tips I have to keep on ice" as having something to do with a choice portion of the female anatomy "keeping Hell on ice."
Come to think of it, though, "keeping Hell on ice" is a pretty cool phrase...
This cleared up some decades-old misconceptions for me. For instance, I had interpreted the line "I got some red-hot tips I have to keep on ice" as having something to do with a choice portion of the female anatomy "keeping Hell on ice."
Come to think of it, though, "keeping Hell on ice" is a pretty cool phrase...
New Internet stats
From Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine:
Lee Rainie of the Pew Internet project gives stats just in from their latest study (which will be up on their site shortly):
: 136 million American adults use the internet -- 67 percent of adults.
: 87 percent of teenagers use the internet
: 59 million Americans have high-speed at home, just over half of users.
: 40 million Americans used the internet to get news online yesterday -- half the number who got it from TV, two-thirds of the number of who got it from newspapers.
: 4 million Googled someone they were about to meet.
: 1 million googled themselves.
: Lee also told me that they asked about use of Craigs List and online classifieds and found very high usage.
He says "the internet has become the norm in America." They're having trouble asking people when they use the internet because it's so much a part of their lives in so many ways now.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Proof of insanity
Janet and I are now taking eight children camping in the Southern Appalachians this weekend.
In the rain.
And only half of them are ours.
If you're one of the people who think the ideas expressed on this blog are the work of a deranged idiot, you now have empirical proof.
In the rain.
And only half of them are ours.
If you're one of the people who think the ideas expressed on this blog are the work of a deranged idiot, you now have empirical proof.
Proof of insanity
Janet and I are now taking eight children camping in the Southern Appalachians this weekend.
In the rain.
And only half of them are ours.
If you're one of the people who think the ideas expressed on this blog are the work of a deranged idiot, you now have empirical proof.
In the rain.
And only half of them are ours.
If you're one of the people who think the ideas expressed on this blog are the work of a deranged idiot, you now have empirical proof.
Go Danny, Go Danny!
Danny Schechter, The News Dissector, is a one-man movement and an inspiring creative force. Here's 10 minutes of audio blending serious media criticism with spoken-word artistry, remixed and sampled and RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Fake news is corporate, too
A nice article from the Center for Media in Democracy that shows another side of the fake news issue.
I want to admit something here: When it comes to broadcast news, I thought I knew more than I did. I think I was more likely to view the VNR subject as I did the standard print (or electronic) press release, press kit, whatever.
I try hard not to be cynical, but sometimes it seems like the only times I'm right is when I believe the worst... which, come to think about it, seldom pans out either. Maybe I'm just wrong on a regular basis and I'm only beginning to see it.
Hell, my fantasy football team was a train wreck this year.
I want to admit something here: When it comes to broadcast news, I thought I knew more than I did. I think I was more likely to view the VNR subject as I did the standard print (or electronic) press release, press kit, whatever.
I try hard not to be cynical, but sometimes it seems like the only times I'm right is when I believe the worst... which, come to think about it, seldom pans out either. Maybe I'm just wrong on a regular basis and I'm only beginning to see it.
Hell, my fantasy football team was a train wreck this year.
What a remarkable moment
I don't know that I can remember a more dramatic turnabout. Two weeks ago the Schiavo case was a backburner story on the National wire. Then the ruling party's leadership decided to fan it into a forest fire, a passion play, a cultural proxy diverting unwanted attention from real business.
Today, those Republican leaders are clearly the ones getting burned. Schiavo didn't make our front this morning, but the story on yesterday's absurdities ran inside with a photo of a woman praying ecstatically in front of a protester holding a hand-lettered sign: "Barbara Bush: Are You Proud of Your Son NOW?"
Maybe she's proud of Jeb. He sent state police to take custody of Terry Schiavo, but they were acting on no legal authority and backed down when confronted by local police who wisely enforced the rule of law.
Randall Terry on the radio this morning: If she dies, the GOP will have Hell to pay from the religious right. Meanwhile, Bo Gritz is famously still driving cross-country to "arrest" Judge Greer, a Baptist whose pastor wrote him a letter saying it would be best if he stopped attending services. Meanwhile, back in North Carolina, a wingnut was arrested for putting out a contract on Greer and Michael Schiavo. Forces of life indeed.
The LA Times: Tom DeLay and his family faced a similar decision with his father. Result: Pulled plug.
Dubya's approval rating? Lowest of his presidency (45 percent), and it's not just the Schiavo case that people dislike. Iraq, the economy, blah blah blah. Consequently, the White House and Fox News backed off the Schiavo story this weekend, but I'm afraid that feline is out of the sack.
There's going to be a retrenchment after this one, a new direction for the GOP coming from Rove. But I think it's safe to say that the power Rove et al weilded two weeks ago has been vastly diminished. That's not to say they're finished by any means. These are smart people who should be able to adjust and return to the offensive (yes, that's also a double entendre), reclaiming and perhaps even expanding their power.
But it's worth noting: The GOP jauggernaut that passed the ANWAR bill three weeks ago just to show that they could do it (even the oil industry is leery of the idea) won't have automatic access to party discipline now. True conservatives are going to be re-evaluating their positions and talking seriously about damage control.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting events (I've done it before), and maybe they'll handle Schiavo's death with characteristic skill and turn this thing around yet. But my take is pretty simple: Dubya, Rove, DeLay and the rest of the gang have gone too far this time, and they're starting to wake up to that realization, hangover and all.
At least one head will have to roll, and it's going to be interesting watching them pick the sacrificial lamb. If I were DeLay, I'd be watching my back.
Today, those Republican leaders are clearly the ones getting burned. Schiavo didn't make our front this morning, but the story on yesterday's absurdities ran inside with a photo of a woman praying ecstatically in front of a protester holding a hand-lettered sign: "Barbara Bush: Are You Proud of Your Son NOW?"
Maybe she's proud of Jeb. He sent state police to take custody of Terry Schiavo, but they were acting on no legal authority and backed down when confronted by local police who wisely enforced the rule of law.
Randall Terry on the radio this morning: If she dies, the GOP will have Hell to pay from the religious right. Meanwhile, Bo Gritz is famously still driving cross-country to "arrest" Judge Greer, a Baptist whose pastor wrote him a letter saying it would be best if he stopped attending services. Meanwhile, back in North Carolina, a wingnut was arrested for putting out a contract on Greer and Michael Schiavo. Forces of life indeed.
The LA Times: Tom DeLay and his family faced a similar decision with his father. Result: Pulled plug.
Dubya's approval rating? Lowest of his presidency (45 percent), and it's not just the Schiavo case that people dislike. Iraq, the economy, blah blah blah. Consequently, the White House and Fox News backed off the Schiavo story this weekend, but I'm afraid that feline is out of the sack.
There's going to be a retrenchment after this one, a new direction for the GOP coming from Rove. But I think it's safe to say that the power Rove et al weilded two weeks ago has been vastly diminished. That's not to say they're finished by any means. These are smart people who should be able to adjust and return to the offensive (yes, that's also a double entendre), reclaiming and perhaps even expanding their power.
But it's worth noting: The GOP jauggernaut that passed the ANWAR bill three weeks ago just to show that they could do it (even the oil industry is leery of the idea) won't have automatic access to party discipline now. True conservatives are going to be re-evaluating their positions and talking seriously about damage control.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting events (I've done it before), and maybe they'll handle Schiavo's death with characteristic skill and turn this thing around yet. But my take is pretty simple: Dubya, Rove, DeLay and the rest of the gang have gone too far this time, and they're starting to wake up to that realization, hangover and all.
At least one head will have to roll, and it's going to be interesting watching them pick the sacrificial lamb. If I were DeLay, I'd be watching my back.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
A different take on objectivity
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Riding the tiger
Dan Gillmor, quoting Frank Rich:
True, perhaps, and I've certainly felt that way. But I am also reminded of a lesson learned 12 years ago in little Shelby, N.C.
During my two-year tenure as city editor for The Shelby Star, some Chamber of Commerce Republicans (including my next-door neighbor and friend, Scott) proposed a referendum to allow the sale of beer and wine on Sundays, the idea being that this would help local establishments compete against bars and restaurants across the county line. The local Baptist organization -- generally considered the most powerful political group in the county -- immediately rallied in opposition.
Over the following weeks, the Baptists thundered from the pulpit, threatened boycotts, bought ads, staged rallies and generally kicked ass. In response, the men behind the referendum virtually disappeared from the face of the Earth. Faced with slanderous personal accusations and wildly inflammatory rhetoric attacking their referendum, the pro-alcohol side sometimes even refused to even take phone calls seeking their comment on the latest anti-alcohol broadside.
I was convinced the referendum was DOA, and so were the Baptists. While they gloated, I got mad at Scott and his GOP colleagues. I thought it was shameful the way they had left a few public spokespeople to take the brunt of the backlash and scurried into their hidey holes, abandoning the idea they had worked so long behind the scenes to promote.
On election night, we all went up to the central fire house to watch as the election commission posted the latest precinct returns on the big outdoor chalkboard. The two leaders of the Baptist Association were there, front and center, accepting congratulations from the crowd and telling people where to go for the big party afterward. My friend Scott and a few people from the pro side were there too, but they were much lower key.
The first returns showed heavy support for the referendum, but the Baptists didn't show any particular concern. As the night wore on, though, a new reality became apparent: People wanted Sunday alcohol sales, but they didn't want to be publicly criticized for it. The day before the election you couldn't find anybody who supported it, yet the measure passed by a substantial majority.
The preachers went from glib to glum, snapping at me when I approached them for comment and stalking away from the firehouse in a cold fury. On the other side of the parking lot, the Chamber guys left with polite smiles on their faces, off to celebrate more energetically in private.
Lesson: Scott and his friends understood that the Baptist Association had grown overconfident because of its long string of victories. They understood that a plurality of Baptists would vote for beer once they got behind the curtain, but that everyone would toe the religious party line until that moment. Even after the victory it was hard to find people who would admit to supporting the referendum, although you could find plenty of people who wouldn't say.
Fear of public humiliation is one thing, but true support is another.
The GOP, as a commenter at Dan Gillmor's site put it, has been riding the tiger and now finds itself inside the beast. Its most cynical political operatives have counted on the power of their moralistic arguments to energize their base while silencing the opposition.
But you can only play that card so long before the faithful begin to resent it, and this is particularly true of Southern Baptists, an oft-maligned group. Yes, most are culturally conservative, but they also come from a proud tradition that celebrates the power of the individual to interpret scripture and form a personal relationship with God. Baptists respect authority (too much so for my tastes) but when you try to push them around, by God, they push back.
I don't expect to see many public defections from the neocon/religious fundamentalist coalition that currently rules the nation, but its once-solid base is eroding rapidly. The Schiavo fiasco is just one example. I mean, who actually thought the nation really wanted to see more of Randall Terry? "BACK! BACK TO THE 90S, CLINIC-BOMBING SCUM!"
Will the Democrats have the sense to use this opportunity to put forward a cohesive statement of positive principles? They're still in hiding so far, making this an interesting moment in our political history. The people are leading: Which politicians will be smart enough to follow?
Next to what's happening now, official displays of DeMille's old Ten Commandments monuments seem an innocuous encroachment of religion into public life. It is a full-scale jihad that our government signed onto last weekend, and what's most scary about it is how little was heard from the political opposition. The Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out this week that even Joe McCarthy did not go so far as this Congress and president did in conspiring to "try to undo the processes of a state court." But faced with McCarthyism in God's name, most Democratic leaders went into hiding and stayed silent. Prayers are no more likely to revive their spines than poor Terri Schiavo's brain.
True, perhaps, and I've certainly felt that way. But I am also reminded of a lesson learned 12 years ago in little Shelby, N.C.
During my two-year tenure as city editor for The Shelby Star, some Chamber of Commerce Republicans (including my next-door neighbor and friend, Scott) proposed a referendum to allow the sale of beer and wine on Sundays, the idea being that this would help local establishments compete against bars and restaurants across the county line. The local Baptist organization -- generally considered the most powerful political group in the county -- immediately rallied in opposition.
Over the following weeks, the Baptists thundered from the pulpit, threatened boycotts, bought ads, staged rallies and generally kicked ass. In response, the men behind the referendum virtually disappeared from the face of the Earth. Faced with slanderous personal accusations and wildly inflammatory rhetoric attacking their referendum, the pro-alcohol side sometimes even refused to even take phone calls seeking their comment on the latest anti-alcohol broadside.
I was convinced the referendum was DOA, and so were the Baptists. While they gloated, I got mad at Scott and his GOP colleagues. I thought it was shameful the way they had left a few public spokespeople to take the brunt of the backlash and scurried into their hidey holes, abandoning the idea they had worked so long behind the scenes to promote.
On election night, we all went up to the central fire house to watch as the election commission posted the latest precinct returns on the big outdoor chalkboard. The two leaders of the Baptist Association were there, front and center, accepting congratulations from the crowd and telling people where to go for the big party afterward. My friend Scott and a few people from the pro side were there too, but they were much lower key.
The first returns showed heavy support for the referendum, but the Baptists didn't show any particular concern. As the night wore on, though, a new reality became apparent: People wanted Sunday alcohol sales, but they didn't want to be publicly criticized for it. The day before the election you couldn't find anybody who supported it, yet the measure passed by a substantial majority.
The preachers went from glib to glum, snapping at me when I approached them for comment and stalking away from the firehouse in a cold fury. On the other side of the parking lot, the Chamber guys left with polite smiles on their faces, off to celebrate more energetically in private.
Lesson: Scott and his friends understood that the Baptist Association had grown overconfident because of its long string of victories. They understood that a plurality of Baptists would vote for beer once they got behind the curtain, but that everyone would toe the religious party line until that moment. Even after the victory it was hard to find people who would admit to supporting the referendum, although you could find plenty of people who wouldn't say.
Fear of public humiliation is one thing, but true support is another.
The GOP, as a commenter at Dan Gillmor's site put it, has been riding the tiger and now finds itself inside the beast. Its most cynical political operatives have counted on the power of their moralistic arguments to energize their base while silencing the opposition.
But you can only play that card so long before the faithful begin to resent it, and this is particularly true of Southern Baptists, an oft-maligned group. Yes, most are culturally conservative, but they also come from a proud tradition that celebrates the power of the individual to interpret scripture and form a personal relationship with God. Baptists respect authority (too much so for my tastes) but when you try to push them around, by God, they push back.
I don't expect to see many public defections from the neocon/religious fundamentalist coalition that currently rules the nation, but its once-solid base is eroding rapidly. The Schiavo fiasco is just one example. I mean, who actually thought the nation really wanted to see more of Randall Terry? "BACK! BACK TO THE 90S, CLINIC-BOMBING SCUM!"
Will the Democrats have the sense to use this opportunity to put forward a cohesive statement of positive principles? They're still in hiding so far, making this an interesting moment in our political history. The people are leading: Which politicians will be smart enough to follow?
Spring milestone
The dogwood in our front yard bloomed this morning, in the midst of a street-flooding Easter downpour.
Spring has sprung in Charleston.
Spring has sprung in Charleston.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
I forget important things
Insomnia is annoying but useful (sometimes). Last night's revelation: I've designed a global warming information grid that neglects to examine possible solutions.
The most important issue to average people is "what should I do?" and I completely forgot to address it.
The most important issue to average people is "what should I do?" and I completely forgot to address it.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Speaking of cultural proxies...
Here's something from a conservative who e-mails me on a regular basis. I wrote a four-page essay this morning before work, much of it on the role of cultural proxies for complex, longstanding grudges. I came in this morning and found this (subject line: "Hit the nail on the HEAD!")
Here's what those feelings look like, raw and unfiltered:
Here's what those feelings look like, raw and unfiltered:
Wow, whoever wrote this, sure hit the nail on the head!
Story in Tampa Newspaper
Will we still be the Country of choice and still be America if we
continue
to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries
that came to live in America because it is the Country of Choice??????
Think about it
All I have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? I
celebrate Christmas, but because it isn't celebrated by everyone, we
can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's
Greetings. It's not Christmas vacation, it's Winter Break Isn't it
amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas
holiday? We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not
offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that no one
has a problem with that.
This says it all!
This is an editorial written by an
American citizen, published in a
Tampa newspaper He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!
IMMIGRANTS,
NOT AMERICANS,
MUST ADAPT.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we
are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist
attacks on Sept. 11,
we have experienced a surge
in patriotism by the majority
of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had
barely settled when the "politically correct! " crowd began
complaining about
the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone
who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is
almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there
are a few things that those
who have recently come to
our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.
This idea of America being a
multicultural community
has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national
identity. As Americans, we
have our own culture, our
own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture
has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories
by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak ENGLISH , not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese,
Japanese, Russian, or any other language.
Therefore, if you wish to become part
of our society, learn the language!
"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some
Christian, right wing, political slogan.. We adopted this motto
because Christian men and women,
on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly
documented.
It is certainly appropriate to display it
on the walls of our schools. If God
offends you, then I suggest you
consider another part of the world as
your new home, because God is part
of our culture.
If Stars and Stripes offend you, or
you don't like Uncle Sam, then you
should seriously consider a move
to another part of this planet. We
are happy with our culture and have
no desire to change, and we really
don't care how you did things where
you came from. This is
OUR COUNTRY,
our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every
citizen the
right to express his opinion and we
will allow you every opportunity to do
so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about
our flag,
our pledge, our national motto, or our
way of life, I highly encourage you
take advantage of one other great American freedom,
THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
It is Time for America to Speak up
If you agree -- pass this along;
if you don't agree -- delete it!
AMEN
I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends
(and enemies) it will also, sooner or later
get back to the complainers, lets all try,
please
Blogging the neo-pagan story
For those of you who don't know this, last January i thought it would be a good story to get to know the local pagan scene (neo-paganism is the fastest growing religious category in the country... a somewhat misleading stat in that the group is so small and poorly defined that big increases are easy to produce ... but I digress). I started going around, meeting people and groups, and pretty early on I decided that I should follow these people for a year before writing any story.
Last week I proposed my concept for the story and requested a May 1 run date. This week I had dinner with a couple of priestesses from one group and attended a meeting of the other.
And this morning I couldn't sleep, so I got up and created a blog just for the neo-paganism story. Its purpose is to allow the people who are "in" the story to participate in the creation of the story (link).
I know that other people have blogged stories, but I'm not aware of anyone who has blogged a story with such a large and diverse group of people. I don't think such an approach is doable or wise for all stories, but I'm excited about its potential here. One way or another, I'll learn something.
Last week I proposed my concept for the story and requested a May 1 run date. This week I had dinner with a couple of priestesses from one group and attended a meeting of the other.
And this morning I couldn't sleep, so I got up and created a blog just for the neo-paganism story. Its purpose is to allow the people who are "in" the story to participate in the creation of the story (link).
I know that other people have blogged stories, but I'm not aware of anyone who has blogged a story with such a large and diverse group of people. I don't think such an approach is doable or wise for all stories, but I'm excited about its potential here. One way or another, I'll learn something.
Blogging in Charleston?
Good (though not yet settled) news: At Thursday's feature department meeting I proposed that we create a blog as part of our coverage of Spoleto, a three-week international arts festival. The bosses liked the idea and gave it a tentative go-ahead.
Now it's just up to me to make it work. I've contacted Ed Cone in Greensboro and he's forwarded my info on to a couple of guys at The News and Record (speaking of Cone, he gave my recent blogging story a link and a nice mention this week; Dave Winer at Scripting News put up the link but had nothing to say about it).
More news, as it happens...
Now it's just up to me to make it work. I've contacted Ed Cone in Greensboro and he's forwarded my info on to a couple of guys at The News and Record (speaking of Cone, he gave my recent blogging story a link and a nice mention this week; Dave Winer at Scripting News put up the link but had nothing to say about it).
More news, as it happens...
Thursday, March 24, 2005
The boor factor
A worthwhile e-mail comment from a reader today: Kudos for some of the other topics, he said, but perhaps I've gone a bit overboard on some of my posts that deal with religious people.
My first reaction, of course, was to apologize. For all my flaws, I hate offending the innocent, and I'm well-aware of my natural tendencies toward bombast and hyperbole.
But on reflection, I want to use that comment to make a finer point.
This blog has no complaint with those who, having examined contrary positions, choose to reject the so-called "rational" status quo in favor of the course put forth by their spiritual faith. Reason isn't the only solution to every problem, and to go looking for God by rational means alone is something akin to looking for darkness with a flashlight.
However, this blog quarrels openly with those who, having examined nothing but their own righteously insecure biases, seek to claim the moral and intellectual high ground. No amount of reason sways them, no amount of light reaches them. These people are the boors among us, and I have little remaining patience for them.
By the way, not every boor is religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was an atheist boor. Think up your own examples.
That said, the dominant boor species today is the fundamentalist boor, and they are easy to distinguish from their fellow congregants (be clear on the point: not all fundamentalists or evangelicals are boors). They demand that all their points be considered with delicate precision, yet they make not even a meaningful pretense of honestly considering anyone else's arguments. Each boor is convinced that the other side in any debate is somehow an agent of evil or, at best, a subhuman dupe.
Boors find evidence for mortal sins in the most commonplace actions of their opponents, yet are absolutely unaware of the mote in their own eye. They project their personalities on the world at large and find it a corrupt, vicious place. They believe their opponents to be dishonest and consequently feel no moral imperitive to honesty themselves. They misrepresent facts, slander their opponents and act as if they feel not the slightest twinge of conscience.
Confronted with facts and mature reflection, boors become abusive, typically engaging in a series of riotous fallacies and concluding with brutish ad hominem attacks. They can be tough opponents in discourse, as they love to latch on to a seemingly inconvenient fact and refuse to relinquish it, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them. They believe that their fervor is a virtue that will be rewarded.
Somewhere in the tortured psyche of the boor lies a sense of profound insecurity, which to me suggests something of their affinity for fundamentalism. Fundamentalism says that knowledge and achievement are nothing next to faithfulness and orthodoxy. Consequently, a Nobel-prize winning scientist may have earned his standing in the elite via his achievement, but the fundamentalist can feel superior to him thanks to his fervent True Belief, be it in Jesus or in Muhammed or Rush. This makes fundamentalism particularly attractive to people who are not "winning" any of our American cultural competitions.
Boors believe in revealed truth and celebrate systems in which any counterattack on their claims can be rejected by appeal to the suppositions of that revelation. Consequently: If I say Jesus would have punished homosexuals and you cite Bible verses to suggest otherwise, I know that you are wrong because Satan is a deceiver. If I say that the mainstream media is liberal and a reporter points out that the Gannon/Guckert story got practically zero traction in the press, while the Clinton "Travelgate" was a story for weeks, I just say that you're so liberal you can't even see when you're being liberal.
Media does a poor job of identifying and dealing with boors. Either we exclude all dissenting voices (which only gives boors more legitimacy) or we allow boors to dominate discussions. In fact, media is becoming the province of boors, with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly the most obvious examples.
Our media needs reform, but for that reform to occur, we must figure out who is a legitimate participant and who is a boor -- or, as they're known online, a troll. They will claim a seat at the head of the table, but they haven't earned entrance to the room.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. And that's where I want to start drawing lines.
My first reaction, of course, was to apologize. For all my flaws, I hate offending the innocent, and I'm well-aware of my natural tendencies toward bombast and hyperbole.
But on reflection, I want to use that comment to make a finer point.
This blog has no complaint with those who, having examined contrary positions, choose to reject the so-called "rational" status quo in favor of the course put forth by their spiritual faith. Reason isn't the only solution to every problem, and to go looking for God by rational means alone is something akin to looking for darkness with a flashlight.
However, this blog quarrels openly with those who, having examined nothing but their own righteously insecure biases, seek to claim the moral and intellectual high ground. No amount of reason sways them, no amount of light reaches them. These people are the boors among us, and I have little remaining patience for them.
By the way, not every boor is religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was an atheist boor. Think up your own examples.
That said, the dominant boor species today is the fundamentalist boor, and they are easy to distinguish from their fellow congregants (be clear on the point: not all fundamentalists or evangelicals are boors). They demand that all their points be considered with delicate precision, yet they make not even a meaningful pretense of honestly considering anyone else's arguments. Each boor is convinced that the other side in any debate is somehow an agent of evil or, at best, a subhuman dupe.
Boors find evidence for mortal sins in the most commonplace actions of their opponents, yet are absolutely unaware of the mote in their own eye. They project their personalities on the world at large and find it a corrupt, vicious place. They believe their opponents to be dishonest and consequently feel no moral imperitive to honesty themselves. They misrepresent facts, slander their opponents and act as if they feel not the slightest twinge of conscience.
Confronted with facts and mature reflection, boors become abusive, typically engaging in a series of riotous fallacies and concluding with brutish ad hominem attacks. They can be tough opponents in discourse, as they love to latch on to a seemingly inconvenient fact and refuse to relinquish it, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them. They believe that their fervor is a virtue that will be rewarded.
Somewhere in the tortured psyche of the boor lies a sense of profound insecurity, which to me suggests something of their affinity for fundamentalism. Fundamentalism says that knowledge and achievement are nothing next to faithfulness and orthodoxy. Consequently, a Nobel-prize winning scientist may have earned his standing in the elite via his achievement, but the fundamentalist can feel superior to him thanks to his fervent True Belief, be it in Jesus or in Muhammed or Rush. This makes fundamentalism particularly attractive to people who are not "winning" any of our American cultural competitions.
Boors believe in revealed truth and celebrate systems in which any counterattack on their claims can be rejected by appeal to the suppositions of that revelation. Consequently: If I say Jesus would have punished homosexuals and you cite Bible verses to suggest otherwise, I know that you are wrong because Satan is a deceiver. If I say that the mainstream media is liberal and a reporter points out that the Gannon/Guckert story got practically zero traction in the press, while the Clinton "Travelgate" was a story for weeks, I just say that you're so liberal you can't even see when you're being liberal.
Media does a poor job of identifying and dealing with boors. Either we exclude all dissenting voices (which only gives boors more legitimacy) or we allow boors to dominate discussions. In fact, media is becoming the province of boors, with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly the most obvious examples.
Our media needs reform, but for that reform to occur, we must figure out who is a legitimate participant and who is a boor -- or, as they're known online, a troll. They will claim a seat at the head of the table, but they haven't earned entrance to the room.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. And that's where I want to start drawing lines.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
A Terry Schiavo poem
This arrived last night jut before midnight from a sender that identified itself as president@whitehouse.gov. The link at the bottom of the page led to a blog that didn't appear to have any direct connection to this poem, so I'm not going to link it.
I think this is a remarkable document. First, the kitsch is appalling. Second, and this is a pet peeve, people who think poetry means rhyming the last words in couplets without any consideration of meter just drive me nuts. Not to mention the fact that this poet tries to couple "greed" and "decree."
But look at what this really says: It attacks some vague cultural hegemony while undermining the legitimacy of law, sets up Christians as the knowledgeable class, calls for a revolution and somehow equates that outcome with "freedom."
Sheesh. It's just one of those "through the looking glass" mornings...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Plight of Terri Schiavo Sparks Poetry
Living in a country of lawlessness and greed,
Trying to stop the murder of the most vulnerable against judicial decree.
Two-bit criminals playing with human life,
Commit high crimes in the national light,
Driven on by the media who feeds
The pap to the masses living in ignorance indeed.
Selfishness and corruption reigns in the land of the free,
Dastardly schemes on your TV and internet screen.
Shoving their actions in our faces like a carrot,
They invoke privacy in their death warrants which they believe hold such merit.
Justice is coming but not from those who lead us,
But from the depths of our souls as their crimes try to greet us.
Striking them down with ferocity and might,
We awaken from slumbers of ignorance's delight.
The future looks brighter once we defeat them,
Wresting from deaths' clutches their hostages.
Freedom.
I think this is a remarkable document. First, the kitsch is appalling. Second, and this is a pet peeve, people who think poetry means rhyming the last words in couplets without any consideration of meter just drive me nuts. Not to mention the fact that this poet tries to couple "greed" and "decree."
But look at what this really says: It attacks some vague cultural hegemony while undermining the legitimacy of law, sets up Christians as the knowledgeable class, calls for a revolution and somehow equates that outcome with "freedom."
Sheesh. It's just one of those "through the looking glass" mornings...
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Open sourcing
Slashdot pointed to a piece on Open v. Closed-Source Climate Research this a.m., and Dewey sent an e-mail calling it to my attention.
Our brief discussion brought up a cool realization: In journalism the talk is all about "transparency." In software design you talk about "open source" code. But the principles expressed by each concept extend beyond bias and interoperability, and they boil down to this: How Do You Know What You Know?
Everyone doing climate science should be making their algorithms public -- not because I'll be able to understand them, but because doing so takes away the charge "What are they trying to hide?" Democracy demands a similar rigor. No state should be able to run electronic voting machines that don't offer open-source software and detailed inspection.
The trick to making journalism transparent and government open and software better is figuring out a 21st century approach to intellectual capital. There are only two reasons to keep certain things secret: 1. Because you're up to no good; and 2. Because it's the only way you know that you can be paid for your good work.
Which is why the next big breakthrough for our culture might well come from an accountant or a lawyer. Solve the open-source business model problem and change the world.
Our brief discussion brought up a cool realization: In journalism the talk is all about "transparency." In software design you talk about "open source" code. But the principles expressed by each concept extend beyond bias and interoperability, and they boil down to this: How Do You Know What You Know?
Everyone doing climate science should be making their algorithms public -- not because I'll be able to understand them, but because doing so takes away the charge "What are they trying to hide?" Democracy demands a similar rigor. No state should be able to run electronic voting machines that don't offer open-source software and detailed inspection.
The trick to making journalism transparent and government open and software better is figuring out a 21st century approach to intellectual capital. There are only two reasons to keep certain things secret: 1. Because you're up to no good; and 2. Because it's the only way you know that you can be paid for your good work.
Which is why the next big breakthrough for our culture might well come from an accountant or a lawyer. Solve the open-source business model problem and change the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
