Showing posts with label gatekeeper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gatekeeper. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Information Technology, People, and a Changing World

Seeing the same opinion I've been expressing in a major newspaper is a nice experience. A tad uncommon, but still nice.

This particular opinion involves technology. Specifically, information technology.

Basically, I don't think that technology makes people do things. That's part of why I don't have a problem with folks owning and using dangerous technology: like LP gas, printing presses, computers, and guns. (June 27, 2008)

Printing presses and computers are in that list because it's my opinion that they're part of two major changes that happened recently. Well, fairly recently.

Gutenberg, Twitter, and People being People

About five and a half centuries back now, Johannes Gutenberg worked the bugs out of movable type technology. Up to that time, books - any recorded visual data - were hand-made by specialized workers: and very expensive. (A Catholic Citizen in America (January 27, 2009))

Before Gutenberg's infotech hit Europe and the world, ideas took time to circulate. Quite a lot of time, generally. After, not so much. Arguably, the Reformation happened because somebody got hold of a 95-point discussion list, and mass-produced it. I don't think a printing press made Luther write his theses, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been distributed so widely if that technology hadn't been available.

Today we've got the Internet, social network services: and a rapidly-evolving set of online communities.

Communities aren't anything new. It's what happens when more that one human being is in an area. We like communicating with each other: it's part of who we are and what we do.

What technologies like writing, printing presses, telephones, and the Internet have in common is that they make communicating with other people a little easier. Or, in the case of people who aren't in the same place at the same time: possible.

Hello Online Communities: Goodbye Status Quo

I've discussed old-school information gatekeepers before. They're the folks who, until very recently, were able to control what the rest of us saw and read.

It's just the way things worked: in America, for example, most information that we call 'news' got filtered through a few editors on the east coast. Most of the rest was reviewed by media executives, teachers, librarians, and the folks who run the publishing industry.

That was then, this is now. Understandably, quite a few of the old-school information gatekeepers are upset about 'the masses' being able to exchange ideas without their permission.

Here in America, I think we're making the transition to the Information Age fairly well: in large part thanks to many folks in this culture already being used to the idea that it's okay to discuss - and even criticize - their 'betters.'

Other parts of the world don't seem to be having an easy time of it.

Which is where today's news and views come in, including these excerpts:
"Part of Interior Ministry compound torched in Cairo"
Ivan Watson and Amir Ahmed, CNN (February 23, 2011)

"An Interior Ministry compound in Egypt was burning Wednesday as smoke billowed into the sky over Cairo.

"Witnesses said the fire was started by protesters upset about labor issues and the blaze could have been ignited by Molotov cocktails.

"Part of a building, and surrounding buildings such as the criminal records building, had been torched as well as several cars....

"...The incident comes as Egyptians continue to work to create the new leadership structure of the country after the revolution.

"State-run media reported Wednesday that there have been about 1,300 official complaints against former Egyptian ministers and government officials.

Interior Minister Mahmoud Wagdi said he ordered that all the complaints, many of them about government waste and corruption, be investigated, state-run EgyNews website reported.

"The investigation into the complaints comes after authorities in Egypt froze the assets of former President Hosni Mubarak and his family, state-run media has reported...."

"These are not just Facebook revolutions"
Jeffrey Ghannam , The Sydney Morning Herald (February 23, 2011)

"Social media enabled Mid-East protesters - it did not motivate them.

"For decades, armed soldiers have guarded the Egyptian Radio and Television Union building in downtown Cairo, apparently to protect the country's formidable broadcast assets from being commandeered in an attempted revolution.

"But Hosni Mubarak's departure from power earlier this month after three decades of rule showed that the power of social media sites and mobile phone technology proved a far bigger threat to the former Egyptian president.

"With protests spreading from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria and Libya, the catchy notion of a 'Twitter Revolution' or a 'Facebook Revolution' is being debated - and tweeted, of course...."

Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Bahrain and the Information Age

There's an old-fashioned way to deal with unruly subjects: kill them. A more contemporary wrinkle is to 're-educate' folks who don't approve of a country's leadership, or tuck the troublemakers in some cell where they'll be out of sight.

There was a time when communications between countries was a matter of diplomatic pouches, traveler's tales, and the occasional monograph by an aristocrat with a taste for travel.

In those days, killing commoners who made a fuss may have been an effective way of maintaining the status quo.

These days, not so much.

Between video cameras on cell phones and a rapidly-evolving set of online communities, what happens in some remote corner of the world - isn't all that remote. Think Iran's Neda Agha Soltan. (June 23, 2009)

Bahrain's Bosses and an Oppressed Majority

I haven't heard "oppressed minority" all that often lately, but another presidential election is coming up, and it may be run up the flagpole again. Which is another topic.

Sometimes minority groups in a country really are oppressed. That's not, in my view, a good idea. In the short term it's hard on the folks who aren't with the majority. In the long term, I think treating underlings unfairly is really bad for the folks in charge.

Then there are situations where you've got an oppressed majority. Again in my opinion, that's bad in the long run.

From the looks of it, the folks who conquered Bahrain a few centuries back are on a voyage of discovery, in which they'll discover that it isn't the 18th century any more.1 From the looks of things, it won't be an easy lesson.

Bahrain is a few islands off the coast of Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf. The biggest one is about 10 miles across by 30 long. ("Bahrain," CIA World Factbook (last updated February 11, 2011)) They've started running out of petroleum, but the king - or somebody with influence - has been smart, and got into petroleum refining and banking. Economically, the place isn't doing too badly.

Or, rather, it looks like the king and his family aren't doing too badly: along with folks who see things the king's way.

America's Involved: No Surprise There

The United States Navy's Fifth Fleet has a major support facility on Bahrain. In some circles, that's 'proof' that capitalist warmonger Yankee oppressors are grinding Bahrain's proletariat - - - and so on.

I see the American presence in Bahrain as no great surprise. Until Bahrain followed Tunisia and Egypt in this year's meltdown, the place was:
  1. In a strategically important part of the world
  2. Moderately stable
Some of Ameirca's more earnest intellectuals notwithstanding, this country isn't in the habit of knocking over governments and trying to set up clones of our government - or warmonger oppressors. America's government has blundered now and again - and I've discussed that before. (February 10, 2011)

Bahrain: "Kick the Bum Out," Not "Yankee Go Home"

Times, as I've said before, change. A few decades back, protests in another country often used 'Yankee go home' as a theme. In today's Bahrain, the protesters apparently think the king can stay - but want the king's uncle fired. The uncle's name is Khalifa bin Salman Al-Khalifa (or Khalifa bin Sulman Al Khalifa). He's been prime minister since 1971 (Factbook, CIA). That's 39 years in the same top job.

Which is a case-in-point for why I think term limits are a good idea - and that's almost another topic.

There may have been epochs when one century was pretty much like another - and someone could lock himself in an executive office for several decades without losing track of what was going on outside.

This isn't one of those epochs.

At all

Today's World: Blink, and You'll Miss Something

I'm not a technological determinist. I don't think that devices we use 'make' us do things. On the other hand, I do think that our technology makes a huge difference in what we can do - once we've made up our minds.

And it's more complicated than that. Things usually are. Yet another topic.
Bahranian Brouhaha: Not Just Tech
I'm about as sure as I can be, that the Bahrainian trouble isn't entirely due to communications and information technology that's popped up since since the king's uncle started being prime minister.

Folks don't, I think, face bullets because some brass hat can't make a phone call without help.

Still, I think Khalifa bin Salman Al-Khalifa and the rest of Bahrain's ruling family may not quite understand what's happened in the last four decades.

Folks who aren't in the upper crust aren't as isolated from each other as we were. The phrase "global village" may have political connotations: but I see it as also being a fairly good way of describing what's happening.

Provided that two people understand the same language, and have access to the Internet, it doesn't matter where each of them is: they can communicate.

Sharing Bad Jokes, Taking Down Autocrats

Most of the communication is trivial, at best: but that's human nature, I think. Most of us don't sit around thinking great thoughts and discussing the existential implication of banana peels.

Once in a while, some of us have something really important to say - or a vital picture to share. Since we're already sharing bad jokes, sports trivia, or what browser is best with our friends, we'll share the important bit of information.

Nothing unusual there. Folks have been doing the same sort of thing for thousands of years.

What's different today is that some of those little communities are spread over several continents. And some folks are involved in more than one community - so if something's really important, the news can travel fast. Very fast.

That's not an original observation - but I think it's an important part of life in the Information Age. I also think it's an important part of what happened in Tunisia, Egypt: and what's happening now in Bahrain and quite a number of other places.

This isn't a good time, in my opinion, for someone in an old-school regime to assume that killing a few commoners will solve a public relations problem. Word gets around faster now: and folks in 'the masses' can get their version of a story out. Maybe just as important: folks dealing with an unyielding, unreasonable regime can learn that they're not alone.

VCR to Twitter: Quite a Ride

I like technology, in general, and don't mind learning new ways of handling information. Which is a good thing for me, considering what I've learned to deal with since 1971. That was the year that the VCR videocassette was invented. Next came word processors and Pong (the first video game), followed by online bulletin boards, the World Wide Web, and Twitter.2
It's been quite a ride.

Somewhat-related posts:
News and views:
I've excerpted material from these sources and opined a bit in another post:
1Background:
"Bahrain "...In 1783, the al-Khalifa family captured Bahrain from the Persians. In order to secure these holdings, it entered into a series of treaties with the UK during the 19th century that made Bahrain a British protectorate. The archipelago attained its independence in 1971. Bahrain's small size and central location among Persian Gulf countries require it to play a delicate balancing act in foreign affairs among its larger neighbors. Facing declining oil reserves, Bahrain has turned to petroleum processing and refining and has transformed itself into an international banking center. King HAMAD bin Isa al-Khalifa, after coming to power in 1999, pushed economic and political reforms to improve relations with the Shia community. Shia political societies participated in 2010 parliamentary and municipal elections. Al Wifaq, the largest Shia political society, won the largest number of seats in the elected chamber of the legislature. However, Shia discontent has resurfaced in recent years with street demonstrations and occasional low-level violence...." ("Bahrain," CIA World Factbook (last updated February 11, 2011))
2 A short list of new communications and information technology:
  • 1971
    • VCR / videocassette)
  • 1972
    • Word processor
    • Pong (first video game)
  • 1973
    • Community Memory
      • Precursor to online bulletin boards
    • Ethernet
  • 1979
    • Cell phones
  • 1981
    • MS-DOS
    • IBM-PC
  • 1984
    • CD-ROM
    • Apple Macintosh
  • 1985
    • Windows GUI
  • 1988
    • Digital cell phones
  • 1989
    • High-definition television
  • 1990
    • World Wide Web
      • Internet protocol (HTTP)
      • WWW language (HTML)
  • 1991
    • Digital answering machine
  • 1996
    • Web TV
  • 2000
    • Solid-state drive (SSD) / Flash drive
  • 2001
    • iPod
  • 2005
    • YouTube
  • 2004
    • Facebook
    • And a webfull of other online communities
    ("20th Century - the technology, science, and inventions," "Modern Inventions," About.com; "Timeline of Historic Inventions," "Facebook," "Bulletin boardsystem," Wikipedia)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Egypt, Iran: It Can't Happen Here?

This isn't a 'political' blog. Not in the sense that I cheer on one person or party - and jeer everybody else.

On the other hand, politics is sometimes involved in the war on terror - and I've got fairly well-defined ideas about what makes sense and what doesn't.

'Stability' isn't Everything

It's my opinion that it doesn't make sense to prop up a dictator who likes to call himself a "president" - and holds elections at intervals to support his claim. Not in the long run.

It's been done - America's support of Latin American dictators was a notorious point of contention about a half-century back. (As I recall, some of them were 'presidentes;' some were - in my view - a trifle more honest about their preferred title.)

I think I understand some of the motivation in those cases. It's comforting, if nothing else, to deal with a "stable" government. There may even be positive aspects to having one leader for a long time - as an alternative to 'presidente of the month' situations. I also don't think that the Cold War was a capitalist plot: and that's another topic.

In the short run, supporting those 'banana republics' may have been expedient.

In the long run, I think the policy was a mistake. A reputation for supporting petty dictators - and calling it 'defending democracy' - did little to bolster support for America among adolescents and young adults who were already dubious about 'the American dream.'

That was then. This is now.

Mubarak's Egypt is a "stable" country. Or was, until a few weeks ago.

Hosni Mubarak, by the way, has been president of Egypt since he got the job on October 14, 1981. (Egypt, World Factbook, CIA (last updated February 1, 2011)) Maybe he's holding out for an even thirty-year reign. Presidency. Whatever.

The Best Form of Government - is One that Works

I've discussed my views of autocracy and other ways folks have developed to manage themselves in another blog. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 5, 2011) Briefly, I think that an autocracy - one person, or a small group, making all the decisions for a country - could work. In theory. In practice, autocrats don't seem to have a particularly good record for running their domains sensibly.

An advantage I see in the system America has is that, in theory at any rate, a proposed course of action gets discussed by so many folks that their individual quirks tend to cancel each other out - leaving something that has a modest chance of not doing too much damage.

There are more upbeat ways of expressing that idea.

Even Autocrats Should Listen to Complaints

President Mubarak and his buddies don't, apparently, like being criticized. Not many people do, I should think.

But most of us aren't able to make folks who disagree with us disappear or die. Mubarak's outfit seems have a 'zero tolerance' approach to criticism.

If they'd been doing a perfect job of running Egypt for the past three (almost) decades, most Egyptians might be willing to put up with the occasional missing relative.

'A chicken in every pot and Uncle Benny in prison' might not make it as a political slogan here in America: but I think folks are willing to put up with quite a bit as long as the system is modestly functional.

From the looks of things, Egypt isn't enjoying boom times just now. Maybe it's not Mubarak's doing: I don't know. This doesn't seem to be the best epoch, economically, in quite a few places.
If it seems that I concentrated rather heavily on the United States in those 'economic' posts - you're right. That's the country I live in: and it's one of the major players, globally. Moving on.

The point is that Egypt, along with other parts of the world, seems to be going through economic hard times. Folks tend, I think, to get a trifle edgy when money's tight. Add that to a regime that's been making friends and relatives die or disappear for decades - and "edgy" could easily turn into "angry." In my opinion.

If only for the sake of good public relations: I think Mubarak and company would have been well-advised to make it look like they were willing to listen to complaints.

Hello, Information Age: Goodbye 'Orderly' Countries

I remember the 'good old days,' when most Americans relied on a few news editors, media executives, and publishers to tell them about what happened outside their circle of friends and acquaintances. Because we didn't have many other options.

From one point of view, it was a nice, orderly situation: Americans watched whatever was on the three major networks, plus PBS; and read whatever news editors and publishers decided was fit to print.

Things aren't quite so 'orderly' these days.

I haven't heard "divisive" used all that much lately - but I think it's a pretty good way of describing information that hasn't been approved by 'the right sort.' I also think that "divisive" isn't necessarily "bad." I've discussed this sort of thing before:

Change Hurts

I think many of the old-school information gatekeepers sincerely thought they were supporting 'freedom of speech' by deciding what the rest of us saw, heard, and read. However valid that assumption is, the America of my youth didn't last.

We got, in fairly rapid succession, and not necessarily in this order:
  • International direct-dial calling
  • Transatlantic real-time television broadcasts
  • Fax machines
  • Twitter
    • And a plethora of other online communities
Americans still, I think, rely on a few news editors, media executives, and publishers to tell them about what happened outside their circle of friends and acquaintances.

But now our 'circle of friends and acquaintances' can easily include folks all over the world.

For me, and others who don't mind finding out what someone besides old-school journalists and established authorities think: the Information Age is a great time to be alive.

The folks who used to have more control over what 'the masses' were allowed to know? I suspect they aren't quite so thrilled.

Which is, I think, part of why we're seeing recurring efforts to 'protect' us from the big, bad Internet. I think many - maybe most - folks who want to keep us from reading 'bad' things online sincerely feel that they're doing the right thing.

I also think that trying to control what others are allowed to learn is not a good idea - with a few exceptions. As I said when I started writing today's posts: it's not simple.

More of today's posts:
Related posts:
More:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Tunisia, Twitter, Change, and Staying Sane

This post isn't about the War on Terror so much as it's about what I think is behind what Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like-minded folks are trying to do.

It looks like they've seen today's world: and don't like it. (February 6, 2009, October 8, 2007) That's understandable, I think:
"...Ishmael to Internet in One Lifetime

"I've made the point before, that many Muslims have been dragged across several thousand years of history and cultural change in one or two generations. Stable cultures, carrying on traditions which had been ancient when Abraham moved out of Ur, were relatively isolated until Western civilization needed petroleum.

"Then, the world of individual rights, Barbies, beer, bikinis and Mickey Mouse dropped into their quiet world. It must have been like a retirement community suddenly having a frat house near the golf course...."
(September 24, 2009)
I do not think that justifies flying airliners into skyscrapers. Like I've written before, understanding does not mean agreeing. I think it's a good idea to understand why someone is doing something - not to find excuses for inexcusable behavior, but to make reasonable decisions when considering how to act.

Like it or not, there's another election coming up in a couple years - and I intend to be an informed voter. And that's almost another topic.

Osama bin Laden isn't the only person who doesn't seem comfortable with change.

Take the former president of Tunisia, for example. He's out of a job now. In part, it seems, because of some newfangled technology and new social structures that developing as people use it.

Tunisia: Times Change

Tunisia is in the news again. Or, rather, still.1

I've noticed a few developments:
  • Zine el Abidine Ben Ali seems to have arrived safely in Saudi Arabia
    • Some of his family didn't
      • Maybe they didn't notice the changes fast enough
  • The General Tunisian Workers' Union (UGTT) want more change
    • They're not the only ones
  • People were killed during anti-presidential demonstrations
    • 78
    • Or over a hundred
    • Depends on who you ask
  • Tunisia isn't carrying on with business as usual
    • Which, in my opinion, is just as well
My guess is that Tunisia won't be having nice, polite, uncontested elections - ever. That doesn't seem to be the way things work: just look at America's last few election cycles. Then there were those "hanging chads." And that's another topic.

Now that a government that sounds a bit like Chicago's old-style political machines is (most likely) on its way out, though, I'd say that folks in Tunisia have a good chance of improving their country.

Today, Tunisia; Tomorrow, the World?

The idea that Twitter - and other online communities and media - brought down the former permanent president of Tunisia is wending its way through the digestive tract of traditional news media.1

My guess is that this latest apple cart upset by Information Age culture and tech is causing no small degree of indigestion along the way.

That's because I don't think that the powers-that-be in Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen are the only ones threatened by folks with Twitter accounts and blogs.

I think America, and the western world in general, is experiencing changes on a scale we haven't seen since Gutenberg started printing with movable type.

As I've said elsewhere, change hurts. And change happens.

Hello Internet; Goodbye Editorial Control

I think that when folks stopped having to depend on traditional information gatekeepers2 for knowledge of what was going on outside their circle of friends and acquaintances: the established order lost a major tool for controlling 'the masses.'

Not that east coast newspaper editors, American educators, and media executives thought about it that way. I find it quite hard to believe that there's some sort of vast conspiracy 'behind the scenes.' Although I think that sort of thing can make a pretty good story. (January 14, 2009)

Conspiracy? No: Cultural Blind Spots? Maybe

America is, in my opinion, just what the CIA World Factbook says it is: a "constitution-based federal republic; [with a] strong democratic tradition." That's lower-case "democratic," by the way. I don't think the CIA is a tool of the Democratic party; the Republicans; or the space-alien, shape-shifting lizard people.

I also prefer to believe that many senior news editors, studio executives, and college professors mean well. I do, though, get the impression that quite a few of the 'proper sort' feel that they have a profound understanding of the world - and that it is their burden to manage what the 'common' people see and read. Sort of an upgrade of the old "White Man's burden." Only more "tolerant," in a politically-correct way. And since these folks seem convinced that they, and they alone, are "tolerant," they don't see that they're filtering out facts they don't like.

Or they think that it's the right thing to do.

I think it may seem 'obvious' to someone with letters after his name, or who has an executive secretary taking his calls, that he and his good buddies can handle the grim realities of the world: and that the rabble can't. Or, rather, that they might come to the wrong conclusions: conclusions that aren't consistent with what he decided should be so.

Sometimes it's a "she:" that's one change that came out of the '60s that I think made sense. Which isn't another topic.

Change Hurts: Change Happens

I've said this before, quite a bit. Change happens: Deal with it.

I remember the '50s. "Happy Days," it wasn't - except for folks like Mr. Cunningham. And even white, male World War II vets had their troubles. Think The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. Which I've mentioned before. (November 10, 2010)

I remember the '60s, too. I don't think the Timothy Leary/Jimi Hendrix thing was a good idea - at all. But the social revolution was more than encouraging bright, talented people to scramble their brains.

Back in the 'good old days' that I remember, for example, quite a few folks were convinced that women should know their place: barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Some still believe that.

But that changed for a great many Americans.

Folks who had grown up thinking that the "Happy Days" lifestyle was the only possible way to live - or at least the only one that decent people should want - were not happy when they stopped being at the apex of society. Or seeming to be, at any rate.

They complained. A lot. But change happened, anyway.

I Don't Want the '50s Again

I've been called a conservative. I can see why. There seem to be three major currently-recognized philosophical positions: Liberal; Moderate; Conservative. Four, if you count apathy. My views are least unlike "conservative" of that triad - or quadrad.

And yet, I don't think that women are entertaining sex machines and household appliances: more useful than a toaster, but less indispensable than high-definition television. Go figure. I'll get back to that.

I certainly do not want a return to the 'good old days' when women were considered odd if they showed an interest in power tools, or men if they were good at graphic design. Partly because my wife is the one with power tools, and I once made a living doing graphic design.

The '60s saw changes in a lot more than just what folks expected men and women to be like.

It's a good thing, in my opinion, that the United States is finally making reparations for a shameful history of treaty violations: but again, that's a family thing for me. I'm related to folks of the Lakota.

It even looks like America may be sorting out how do deal with the idea that people shouldn't be evaluated based on who their ancestors were - even if those ancestors came from northwestern Europe. Which is a good thing. Again, in my opinion.

The changes of the last five decades have been - and are - painful. But I think many were for the better - and anyway, change happens.

New Technology, New Social Structures: Dangerous, Sort of

Maybe I'd be more worried about this here newfangled Internet, and online communities, if I hadn't been through this sort of thing before.

I remember when the telephone was destroying the youth of America. According to some terribly serious folks, anyway. Same with television.

Then, as broadcast television was being supplanted by cable: cable television was feared and reviled as that which would destroy America's cultural unity. In a way, the hand-wringers had that one right. Before cable, just about everybody had either seen the latest "Leave It to Beaver," "Bewitched," or "M*A*S*H" episode: or had heard about it. We had something besides the weather to talk about.

Now, with hundreds of channels, you can't count on someone else having seen the same thing you did the night before. Divisive? Maybe. I prefer having more choices: including skipping television entirely and seeing what's online.

The Internet was, and is, seen as a threat, too. I've mentioned the time when the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority tried - together - to get a Federal agency that would manage what Americans were allowed to see. (March 9, 2008)

I think that ideological odd couple shows how frightened at least some folks in the establishment are, of the power that most Americans now have. We no longer depend on a relatively small number of the 'right sort' to decide what we're allowed to see and read. If we're interested, we can go online and do our own research: and draw our own conclusions.

Not everybody comes to the same conclusions I do: But I'd much rather live now, when each of us can learn something besides what the established order thinks we should - than back in the 'good old days.'

Not everybody feels that way, so we're hearing about how Twitter twists the youth - and that's a topic I've posted about before. (see Related posts)

Sex Machines, Toasters, and High-Definition Television

I said I'd get back to philosophical positions, women, and toasters. This is the last section of this post, and is more detailed look at my views of a set of cultural values that I think are still in a state of flux: the position or women, and men, in society.

I am not all that sympathetic with the bra-burning set. I've been called a male chauvinist pig too many times. But weird demands and assertions aside - it's my considered opinion that women and men are people, and should be treated as such.

The two halves of humanity differ from each other, and exhibit a vast range of individual differences - we've got upwards of 6,768,000,000 distinct versions of humanity as of July of last year. (CIA World Factbook (updated on January 13, 2011))

Back in my "good old days," the problem was that women weren't recognized as being 'as good as men.' Or, from the point of view of guys who like things just the way they were, some women didn't 'know their place.'

Now the problem, from some points of view, is that some women don't know their place - behind whatever liberal notion is in fashion at the moment. And, again, that isn't another topic.

As I've tried to show, I think there's a social revolution going on: one that today's establishment likes as little as the establishment of my teens liked what 'those crazy long-haired kids' were doing.

One of a great many aspects of American culture that's changing is, in my opinion, the role or roles that women are expected to fill. Men, too.

Finally, a clarification about my take on "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen."
  • Barefoot:
    • I wear shoes as little as possible - even during central Minnesota winters
      • Nothing ideological
        • I have a hard time finding ones that fit
        • The things cost a lot
  • Pregnant:
    • I like babies
      • And the process that gets them started
    • I also think life is precious
      • Even life that has to have frequent diaper changes
    • But I don't think women are just for having babies
      • Or that men are just for getting them started
  • In the kitchen
    • I think my wife's job of job of maintaining our household and being a mother is
      • Demanding
      • Complex
      • Vital
      • Arguably more important than any of my 'real' jobs were
    • I think my job as father is more important than my 'real' jobs
    • Which doesn't mean that women shouldn't have 'real' jobs
      • Just that there's more to life than a 'career' for
        • Men
        • Women
Related posts:
News and views:
Background:
  • "Tunisia"
    World Factbook, CIA (last updated January 12, 2011)
1 Excerpt from the news:
"Two allies of Tunisia ousted leader Ben Ali 'detained' "
BBC News Africa (January 23, 2011)

"Tunisian police have detained two politicians close to ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, state media report.

"Mr Ben Ali's former adviser Abdelaziz bin Dhia and former Interior Minister and head of Senate Abdallah Qallal were now under house arrest, they said.

"The news came as a new protest march against the interim government reached the capital Tunis....

"...PM Mohamed Ghannouchi has pledged to quit after elections, which are expected within six months...."

"...The media also said that the police were searching for Abdelwahhab Abdalla - another former adviser to Mr Ben Ali.

"Last week, some 33 members of Mr Ben Ali's family were arrested as they tried to leave the country....

"...On Sunday, a new protest march reached Tunis.

"Some 1,000 demonstrators from Menzel Bouzaiane - the rural area where protests against Tunisia's authoritarian rule began in December - had joined the 'Caravan of Liberation' to the capital.

"The main trade union, the General Tunisian Workers' Union (UGTT), has backed the protest, which set off on Saturday....

"...Mr Ghannouchi has left Mr Ben Ali's ruling Democratic Constitutional Rally (RCD) party and insisted that figures from the previous regime who have remained in positions of power - including the ministers of defence, interior, finance and foreign affairs - have 'clean hands'.

"But this has failed to satisfy many opposition figures and protesters.

"On Saturday, policemen - who had defended the regime of the ousted president - were among those protesting, which the BBC's Magdi Abdelhadi in the Tunisian capital says marked a very dramatic development.

"The official death toll during the unrest leading to Mr Ben Ali's flight was 78, though the UN says more than 100 people died. Authorities have promised to investigate the deaths of protesters.
(BBC)

"Tunisians mourn protest victims as small demonstrations continue"
Edition: International, CNN (January 23, 2011)

"Tunisia on Sunday ended a three-day mourning period for dozens of people killed in protests that ousted the country's long-term president.

"As the mourning period came to a close, small protests broke out in the capital, Tunis.

"Protesters have decried a new government formed in the wake of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali's ouster.

"They have called it a sham, and demanded that officials with connections to the old guard be fired.

"The nation's interim prime minister said that his country would hold its first free democratic elections since gaining independence and vowed to leave politics after the ballot.

" 'We want to make the next elections the first transparent and legitimate elections since independence,' Tunisian Interim Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi said Friday.

"Ghannouchi said he will retire from politics after the elections are held.

"Tunisia gained independence from France in 1956.

"Ghannouchi said upcoming political reforms would 'scrap all undemocratic laws including laws involving political parties, the elections and the anti-terrorism law that was abused by the former regime.'

" 'I lived like all Tunisians, in pain and fear' under the former president, Ghannouchi said...."
(CNN)
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Tunisia: 24 Hours, Three Presidents

Tunisia is a little wedge of a country between Libya and Algeria.

It's been quite a stable country, by some standards: the same fellow's been President of Tunisia since 1987. Somehow, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali kept winning elections.

That was then, this is now. The former Tunisian president is believed to be hightailing it for Saudi Arabia, and the country's on its third president so far. Since this morning.
"...Ben Ali's longtime ally, Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi, stepped in briefly with a vague assumption of power that left open the possibility that Ben Ali could return. But on Saturday, the head of the Constitutional Council declared the president's departure permanent and gave Fouad Mebazaa, leader of the lower house of parliament, 60 days to organize new elections...."

"...In his first televised address, the interim president asked the prime minister to form a '"national unity government in the country's best interests' in which all political parties will be consulted 'without exception nor exclusion.'

"The move was one of reconciliation, but it was not clear how far the 77-year-old Mebazaa, who has been part of Tunisia's ruling class for decades, would truly go to work with the opposition. It was also unclear who would emerge as the country's top political leaders, since Ben Ali utterly dominated politics, placing allies in power and sending opponents into jail or exile...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
Quite a few people have been killed since the excitement started today. There's been a major fire, and one prison released inmates - a humanitarian gesture, I take it, since that's where the fire was. 42 prisoners had been killed by the time the 1,000-odd others were released.

One lesson of what's happening in Tunisia may be that there are worse things than America's traditional lawsuits to decide who won an election.

Another is, I think, that this isn't the '50s any more. Or the '60s.

An article/op-ed in Wired (January 14, 2011) suggested that we're looking at what happens when Information Age technology and social structures wash over a country that's run by folks whose power depends at least in part of controlling what their subjects know.

I've discussed information gatekeepers before. In America, they've been the editors of east coast newspapers, book and magazine publishers, executives of media companies, professors, and the rest of the folks who run the education establishment.

And that's not quite another topic.

Related posts:News and views:Background:
  • "Tunisia"
    World Factbook, CIA (last updated January 12, 2011)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo

This is - interesting.
"Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution? "
Ernest S. Christian & Gary A. Robbins, Perspective, Investors Business Daily blog (July 30, 2010)

"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

"People are asking, 'Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?'

"Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency...."

"...Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily...."
The bloggers' view of America's current administration is somewhat less than favorable: understandably, in a publication devoted in part to the idea that owning private property is okay.

The bulk of the post concerns economic issues which I believe are important, but which fall outside the purview of this blog. The point of interest, for Another War-on-Terror Blog, is in the first paragraph:
"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another...."
(July 30, 2010)
Before writing what I think about the Internet, information gatekeepers, and change, a few points:
  • This is not a political blog
    • I occasionally discuss politics because that's how America selects its leaders
    • I am not "for" or "against" the president
      • Particular policies are another matter
  • I do not call for the overthrow of the American government
    • That would be
      • Illegal
      • Messy
      • Likely to give us something even less acceptable

What are Information Gatekeepers? Why are They So Upset?

I've discussed this before:
...According to Princeton's WordNet, an gatekeeper is literally a doorkeeper or doorman: someone who guards an entrance. "Gatekeeper" may also be used as a metaphor:
"gatekeeper (someone who controls access to something) 'there are too many gatekeepers between the field officers and the chief' "
(Princeton's WordNet)
So, an "information gatekeeper" is someone who controls access to information.

Information Gatekeepers in America

For several generations, the traditional information gatekeepers in American culture included
  • Newspaper editors
  • Teachers and organizations of teachers
  • Leaders of colleges and universities
  • Entertainment industry executives
  • Publishers of books and magazines
There are others, like politicians and military leaders - but I'm inclined to think, "...if you will let me write the songs of a nation, I care not who makes its laws...."1

A problem I see with America's traditional information gatekeepers is that, by the 20th century, a very small group of people had a great deal of control over what the rest of us were allowed to know. I don't think this was (entirely) intentional....
(August 14, 2009)
That's the way it was for most of the latter part of the 20th century. Then people started using the Internet, and now we've got blogs - including this one - publishing ideas that haven't been approved by America's traditional information gatekeepers.

I don't mind the way things are, in terms of freedom of speech: but I'm not part of America's established order, either. My ideas are not politically correct: I even think it's okay for people to use dangerous technology like guns, LP gas and computers. (June 27, 2008)

I think America's traditional information gatekeepers are very concerned that people like me are free to share ideas with others.

They should be.

It seems that many folks who are not part of America's power structure now realize that they're not the only ones who are fed up with the status quo.

Back in the 'good old days,' it was possible to convince many - perhaps most - folks who didn't entirely agree with the establishment's way of thinking that their only allies were inarticulate crackpots. (A Catholic Citizen in America (April 1, 2010))

Today, not so much. Some bloggers are crackpots. Some aren't - and there isn't any way of making sure that anti-establishment ideas are presented almost exclusively by crackpots.

No wonder folks in the establishment are concerned.

Saving a Spunky Girl Reporter, Retaining Our Freedom

At least, America doesn't have a way of filtering what "the masses" see on the Internet - yet. That may change.

Earlier this week, a attractive ESPN reporter made an emotional appeal for the government to do something about those awful people on the Internet. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010)

She's got a point. What happened to her wasn't right. Stalking is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it.

But I'm very concerned that, months before an election, an attractive young woman makes an emotional cry for help - pleading that the government save her from nasty people online.

As I said, she's got a point: existing laws against stalking should be enforced, and perhaps the penalties are insufficient.

But that's not what she asked for.
"...She said, 'If somebody could think of something, I mean, they'd be a hero because, you know, there's just a lot of stuff that needs to be policed; that needs to be looked at. No one's held accountable for what they put on the Internet.'..."
(Erin Andrews, quoted on CNS News, via Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010))
'Will no-one save her?!' My concern that the American Congress will rush to rescue this fair damsel - and set up regulations that will keep unsavory characters away from the American public.

Unsavory characters like stalkers, terrorists, and Ron Paul supporters.

Related posts:Baqckground:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, April 12, 2010

About a New York City Fire: but Mostly About the News and Assumptions

Update/revision (April 15, 2010)

Big cities are the hub around which all that is informed, cultured, and pretty much cool revolve, right?

Actually, there's some truth there. That dense concentration of humanity in metropolitan areas has the potential for generating a lot of power: economically, artistically, philosophically, and politically.

With the possible exception of economic power, living in a big city can be sort of like being online; or corresponding with pen pals; or reading books.1

All of which can also be done if you live near telephone lines, or have a satellite dish.

But I think that it's been a long time - at least - since urbanites could count on their place of residence guaranteeing them intellectual and cultural superiority over those who lived outside the city walls.

What set me off, writing this post, was news coverage of a fire. Lots of news coverage.

[from here, except for one hideously garbled sentence, the post is as it was originally published - it's now the first 2 paragraphs after "People are People"]
First of all, I think it's completely appropriate for The New York Times to report on the fire at 283 Grand Street. And, by the time it was put out, 285 Grand Street, and then to 289 Grand. The latter is on the corner of Eldridge Street.

The New York Times not reporting on that fire would be like the Sauk Centre Herald not reporting on a major fire near the corner of Sinclair Lewis Avenue and Elm Street. That fire is big hometown news.

I also think that the fire is national news for America. New York City is a major city - the last I heard, it's the largest port city we've got on the Atlantic. What happens in the Big Apple is important to the rest of us.

Before I forget it: A video:

"250 NYC Firefighters Battle 7-alarm Fire"

AssociatedPress, YouTube (April 12, 2010)
video, 0:47

"Officials say more than a dozen people, most of them firefighters, were hurt in an early-morning fire in Chinatown that burned more than four hours. There's no word on the cause. (April 12)"

Second, I really don't think that fire has much to do with the war on terror. I suppose there could be some sort of 'butterfly effect,' eventually, where an injured firefighter isn't there to deal with a fire that damaged a warehouse that - - - You get the idea. But directly connected? No. That fire was a huge issue for the people directly involved, but I don't think it'll measurably affect the nation as a whole.

Third, and this is the reason I'm writing this post: news coverage of this Sunday night fire is a pretty good opportunity for me to discuss the relative sophistication of small town hicks and city slickers.

Dunseith, San Francisco, and People

The smallest place I've lived in was Dunseith, North Dakota. The largest, San Francisco, California. In terms of area, Dunseith is about a mile long by a half-mile wide. San Francisco is very roughly a square, seven miles on a side. Dunseith covers maybe a 0.5 square mile, San Francisco 46.7 square miles (121 square kilometers, for those who think metric).

San Francisco is much more efficiently packed, though, so around 800,000 people live there. (U.S. Census 2008, via Google) Dunseith, as of 2000, was home to 739 people. (U.S. Census Factfinder)

There are differences between the people in San Francisco and Dunseith, of course. I'm basing this on my experience in San Francisco in the seventies and Dunseith in the eighties, but I don't think either has changed all that much.

For example, pull two people at random off the streets of San Francisco, and of Dunseith: and the two from San Francisco are less likely to be related to each other than the pair from Dunseith.

That doesn't mean that people in Dunseith are inbred freaks. That sort of thing happens in those postbellum potboilers that were popular several decades back. In the real world? Not so much.

Sure, in principle you could find a small town in America that's inhabited largely by weird-looking idiots whose ancestors married first cousins too often. And, again in principle, you could find a city inhabited by killer zombies, mutated by toxic waste from a Big Corporation factory. You're not very likely to find either, though.

People are People

Living in a community, of any size, it's hard to not notice people: the loud ones, anyway.

Based on my own experiences, I think that that some people who live in small towns have a very parochial outlook. It is hard to miss the impression that they really believe that what happens in their town is the most important thing in the world.

I also think that some people who live in big cities are equally convinced that what happens in their town is the most important thing in the world.

It's great to be interested in and connected to the place where you live and its people. But it's also important to remember that folks who live elsewhere are people, too. Even if they live in some small town you never heard of.

Ignorant, Isolated, Villagers? That's So 14th Century

I think there may have been something to the notion that people who live in small towns are, well, clueless commoners. In England, it would have been folks who didn't live within walking distance of London - were isolated, ignorant villiens, with an awareness that extended as far as the village church and manor house and no farther.

Then Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg introduced that dangerous, divisive technology we call movable type: and the world changed. Documents could be mass-produced and distributed as fast as a mounted courier could travel. Reading changed from a professional specialty to a basic skill. And those villiens had a source of information about the rest of the world.

Several massive cultural revolutions and two global wars later, many people take printed documents for granted. And some of them have been very, very upset about dangerous new technologies like cable television and the Internet.

Can't say that I blame them. Utter outsiders getting access to the sort of information that's been reserved for the 'right sort' has changed things before. I think it's changing things now.

And, as I've said, before: "Cultural Chaos! Divisiveness! I Like It!" It's not that I like chaos: but the applecart that's been pushed around America for the last several decades is long overdue for getting pushed over. In my opinion.

I've discussed this sort of thing before - if you're interested, check out "Related posts," below.

Some traditional (more or less - check out the AP YouTube video) news is listed below that.

First, though: Information-Age discussion of the Grand/Eldridge fire in New York City:Related posts:In the news:
1 Yes: reading books. It's an old information technology, but books are a sort of one-way communication from some of the best minds - and many of the mediocre ones - who've lived during the last few thousand years.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Sean Penn: Passionate Defender of Hugo Chavez

Another reason I'm glad this isn't the 'good old days,' when ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS decided what the masses got to see on television, and The New York Times, along with a few other northeastern papers, led the way for all those lesser newspapers.
"If Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn had his way, any journalist who called Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a dictator would quickly find himself behind bars.

"First Amendment be damned . . . If Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn had his way, any journalist who called Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a dictator would quickly find himself behind bars.

"Penn, appearing on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on Friday, defended Chavez during a segment in which he detailed his work with the JP Haitian Relief Organization, which he co-founded.

" 'Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it' said Penn, winner of two Best Actor Academy Awards. 'And this is mainstream media, who should -- truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.'..."
(March 8, 2010)
I understand Mr. Penn's point of view quite well. I grew up less than two blocks from a college campus, and was immersed in America's dominant culture for decades.

Looks like things haven't changed much. As far as the self-described best and brightest are concerned, America and Venezuela are just alike. Except Venezuela isn't a 'racist, hateful, polluting, warmonger capitalist oppressor.'

It's true, sort of. Venezuela is a federal republic, just like the United States. We're a "Constitution-based federal republic" - but that's pretty close. (CIA World Factbook) Venezuela has a president, too: it's quite a popular title for the boss man of a country, these days.

And yes, Venezuela has elections. For that matter, so does Iran.

Welcome to the Information Age

I checked. Sean Penn was born in 1960: the start of a - remarkable - decade. My guess is that he truly, passionately, believes that Hugo Chavez is a fine fellow. After all, he was elected. And, at least as importantly, despises America. That last is a vital point, for anyone who wants to be considered 'intelligent' in some circles.

After all, 'everybody knows' that America is the embodiment of all that is icky. And if you don't agree, you're 'unintelligent.'

There's nothing like quite peer pressure to keep folks in line.

I'm not convinced that democracy, federal republics, or even elections are a guarantee that competent, caring people get into executive positions. I think America has a good system: but that's another topic.

So, since this is America, Mr. Penn can publicly express the opinion that reporters should be jailed for disagreeing with him. And, so far, reporters are free to report on Mr. Penn's remarks.

When I was growing up, the three commercial television networks plus (later) PBS were it as far as television programming was concerned. When network news came into its own: if they didn't think something was newsworthy, you didn't see it on television. If they did, you saw it. Over and over.

American newspapers weren't as rigidly structured: but since the sun rises over the east coast first, editors for papers like The New York Times were the first to start scanning the welter of information coming over the wire. They decided what would be 'in the news' for that day.

And other editors, often with smaller staffs, would look to The New York Times and it's cousins for guidance. They didn't have to: but with deadlines and a limited staff, it made sense to save a little time and assume that The New York Times editors knew what they were doing.

What everybody seems to have missed is that The New York Times is a hometown paper for New York City's upper crust. Nothing wrong with that: but I'm glad that we've got other information resources now.

Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

'Everybody Knows' That Americans are Arrogant

Is this help-wanted ad really so surprising?

"EXCLUSIVE: Help Wanted -- 'Arrogant Americans' Need Not Applyhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586342,00.html"
FOXNews (February 17, 2010)

" Looking for a job? Well, if you're an "arrogant American,' you had better search elsewhere.

"An information technology staffing firm based in Rolling Meadows, Ill., posted an advertisement for a technical writer that warned that an 'arrogant American' would not flourish in the position.

" 'Exelon is looking to provide these proposals to Chinese businesses, so someone who is respectful and understands Chinese culture is preferred. An arrogant American will not work well in this role,' the listing read.

"The ad, posted by Viva USA, an information technology consulting firm, has since been removed. Varuna Singh, the company's development manager, told FoxNews.com it received the language from its client, Exelon Nuclear Partners, and the wording somehow got past a 'junior recruiter' who posted the advertisement on CareerBuilder.com...."
Now that they've been caught, the recruiting outfit is taking down the ad. Commendable.

You don't have to believe this, by the way. The story ran on the FOX News website: and 'everybody knows' that FOX News lies. They're arrogant Americans, remember.

America isn't Perfect: But The Anti-American Fad is Seriously Dated

Back in the sixties, being anti-American was kind of now, kind of wow. You know, like, groovy.

Forty years later? The idea that Americans - all Americans - are arrogant, insensitive capitalist imperialist warmonger running dogs has gotten rather old.

Oh, well: I'm an American, myself. And 'everybody knows' what we're like.

How Divisive of an Upstart News Service

I've written about information gatekeepers before. ("What is an Information Gatekeeper?" (August 14, 2009))

And, I'm rather glad that we live in a time when "divisive" news items like this can get published. Even if old-school editors at The New York Times and broadcast networks' news departments don't feel like letting 'the masses' know about items like this.

Related posts:Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, December 7, 2009

How to Shut Down the Internet - or - Dealing With Troublesome Ideas, and the People who Spread Them

Turns out, it's fairly easy to block people from the Internet. In some parts of the world. I ran into an article that describes how Iran was able to "shut down the 'net" today. Not the whole Internet, of course: just the parts in areas where the Ayatollahs' enforcers were doing something that involved tear gas and bullets.

Just exactly what happened isn't entirely clear: but Iran's leaders didn't let another "Neda" video get out.
"How to Shut Down the 'Net: A Guide for Repressive Regimes"
FOXNews (December 7, 2009)

" Facing student protests ahead of today's National Students Day — the anniversary of three student deaths in Tehran in 1953 — the state-owned Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI) slowed or blocked completely access to the Internet for most of the state

"The Internet may be a worldwide superhighway, but it's all to easy to shut it down. Governments aiming to squelch free speech in don't even have to work hard to do so: It's all too easy to restrict the Internet and keep their people in the dark...."
The rest of the article is, I think, worth reading. But then, I'm one of those people who read articles in The New York Times, Reuters, Xinhua News Agency, and even - FOXNews.

There are quite a few ways of reacting to the article, including (adapted from another blog's post):
  1. Denial:
    • The article is on the FOXNews website, so it must be a lie
      • And probably some kind of conspiracy
  2. Defense:
    • Iran's leaders, as non-Western rulers with citizens who aren't unswervingly loyal
      • Has very understandable reasons for stamping out criticism
      • Shouldn't be judged harshly
        • If at all
      • Is simply reacting to Yankee imperialism
        • Which, in some circles, excuses almost anything
  3. Resignation:
    • That's just the way things are
      • And it's never going to change
  4. Interest:
    • So that's how it's done
Considering the myriad ways of the human mind, I'm sure there are many more alternative reactions.

Me? I go with the fourth alternative. I don't approve of the Ayatollah's government: even though it is a democracy, in the sense that they have elections: and replaced a monarchy. I grew up in America, a republic with a 'strong democratic tradition,' and think that a democracy is a workable form of government. But I don't think it's the only way that a country can be run - or even the only 'good' way to manage national affairs. (November 15, 2009, December 29, 2008) But I'm getting off-topic.

The point is, because of the way information technology is set up in Iran, and the sort of power the government has - legally - it's fairly easy for the Ayatollahs to black out parts of their domain.

Quite a few countries don't have the bewildering array of Internet Service Providers that America has - which simplifies the process of choosing an ISP - and which really helps the government, when the Supreme Leader, or whatever the big kahuna's title is, wants to lean on the local and regional ISPs.

From a technical point of view, filtering unwanted information is a fairly straightforward affair.
"...Keyword blocking prevents people from searching for such obviously dangerous words as 'freedom' and 'democracy.' Custom black lists also server to block content that specifically rankles the government. Is it unions, student protests or something else?

"When the government catches someone searching for these terms, they can automatically turn off their access for a period of time. "If a user happens upon a site or search result that has been flagged unacceptable, that user’s connection to the Internet can be dropped altogether for a specified period of time," notes PCMag.com's Lynn...."
The article is, I think, a fairly quick way to learn just how easy it is to control what people are allowed to read and see. Information technology like the Internet makes it possible for people around the world to communicate - but only as long as national leaders are willing to put up with the occasional embarrassments that go along with that sort of transparency.

I think that America enjoys a remarkable degree of freedom, and I'm one of those people who's willing to put up with the messy side of open communication. I don't like it, but that - again - is another topic. (See "Frosty the Pornman....," in another blog)

A history of (relatively) free exchange of ideas is no guarantee that Americans will be allowed to express themselves in the future. It hasn't been all that long, since a strange alliance of very serious people tried to "protect" Americans from the Internet. (March 9, 2008) Yes, it can happen here - and almost did.

Related posts: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.