Spy vs Spy

Rand Paul's objecting to the unchecked extension of the Patriot Act requires little reporting. This Wall Street Journal blog post about it should interest readers only because of the way the author describes the debated provisions:

The provisions at issue enable law enforcement officials to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects, including those who switch communication devices such as using disposable cellular phones and those who are so-called lone wolves—individuals who aren’t linked to known terrorist organizations abroad. A third provision enables law enforcement officials access to suspects’ business transactions, including car rentals, hotel bills and other credit card transactions.

By labeling surveilled people suspects--terrorist suspects, in particular--the writer intends for the reader to support passage and object to Paul's "tactic" of "insisting" on full debate. The reader concludes, "Well, this doesn't affect me!"

This woefully poor summary of the provisions is admirable.

It's all in your head

The Newsweek author responsible for the article "Stuck in a Post-Crisis Gloom" first attempts to summarize what "abetted" the Great Recession without mentioning banks, sub-prime lending, deregulation, over-leveraging, or credit default swaps. Instead he blames consumer overspending. As for the recovery, he says,

The greatest barrier to recovery now could be psychology—stubborn gloom—which conditions household and business spending decisions. There is a curious role reversal. Foolish optimism led to the financial crisis and recession by assuming things would work out for the best. Now, reflexive pessimism weakens growth by ignoring good news or believing it can’t last.

A startling hypothesis: The public caused the recession and now the public prevents recovery.

How wonderful when meanings evolve

M. Craft's song "I Got Nobody Waiting For Me" won me over. The lyrics:

I've got nobody waiting for me
There's no one that I have to see
Anytime, anyplace that I said I would be
Finally I'm free and I'll be anywhere 

I'll chase my tail till I fall in a heap
Now all that I have to lose is some sleep
And I'll give away all of the hours you keep
Finally I'm me and I'll be anywhere

I'll stay out until the sun makes a play
For the sky and a new day's begun
I'll sit up the back of the bus
And without any fuss I will travel

'Cause I've got no one to weigh on my mind
No footsteps are dragging behind
As fingers reach out for the feeling in mind
I got nobody waiting for me

All that money grows out on the trees
Notes float along like seeds on the breeze
And they're easy to catch but they hatch a disease
That eats away the soul of you, the whole of you

And all those wages we make for our sins
Become the cages we lock ourselves in
Become the age that is marked on our skin
But I'm not gonna worry 'bout all that 'cause

I'll live on the taste of the air
This is life without care and I like it this way
I'll lie across the whole of the bed
In the world in my head, I will travel

But I've got nobody left to impress
No neck for my lips to caress
As I work out the buttoned up back of a dress
I got nobody waiting for me

Nobody's waiting for me
No, nobody's waiting for me

Such a good song. The author seems to celebrate aloneness ("Finally I'm free and I'll be anywhere"), while duly noting his managed pitying for the loss of intimacy ("No neck for my lips to caress"). But the celebration is maybe not so celebratory.

Consider the verse starting with "All that money grows out on the trees". How is money relevant to how a guy feels about being alone? To a guy, money does seem to go quicker when you're dating. But money itself isn't the point. The point is about corrupting influences: "And all those wages we make for our sins / Become the cages we lock ourselves in / Become the age that is marked on our skin".

When you're alone, you are often more susceptible to being corrupted. By anything. For example, you have only yourself to lavish attention on. This could corrupt, breeding self-absorption and selfishness. And money-wise, you might be impressed with how much you're saving alone; but soon enough you learn its never enough.

The pitying for lack of intimacy is the last verse of the song, followed by the refrain "Nobody's waiting for me". So Craft--or his character in the song--seems to feel that aloneness is bittersweet at best, though its often worse.

Suspicious Googling

Started reading The Googlization of Everything (And Why We Should Worry) by Siva Vaidhyanathan. The first few sections feel redundant. But the author's insistence may be justified.

Google earned immense popularity with its reliable search engine, and many tech news devotees appreciate the company's political and market identity. For these reasons, the author must first convince his audience that his concerns are valid and healthy, not hasty or ill-informed. But in his prose we see him walk a fine line; because Google is so popular and Vaidhyanathan doesn't want to alienate readers, he quickly denies having any intent to brand Google either good or bad. But in announcing his advocacy of regulation, possible legal action and ethical inquiries, the author and his subject come into opposition. And Vaidhyanathan does not sound like the reluctant harbinger of trouble he purports to be.

So far the book reads like an expose posing as an institutional analysis by an academic. I'm not against reading either of those books. And it's early still, so my impressions could change.

Popular Stoics

Was surprised and interested to see Foucault indict the Stoics in latter portions of Care of the Self. His analysis, like so much his other work, counters preconceived ideas. I had pictured these philosophers as characters of resignation; and I concluded that this resignation necessarily prevented them from being influential beyond their kin. But not so, according to Foucault; they were enormously influential. And the moral and ethical conclusions they drew from their insistence on understanding nature and being at harmony with the universe profoundly impacted what would become acceptable ways of living and what affinities would become vilified or otherwise expire with the Age.

When a marriage is legitimate

In Care of the Self, the third volume of The History of Sexuality trilogy, Foucault summarizes the history of marriage. Elite pagans married to form alliances of wealth and power; the poor married for economic practicality (i.e., a poor man might marry a poor woman and they, with their family, could support themselves). These marriages needed only the family's blessing. From there, interests of the State and of the Church took root. Marriages became increasingly social and public.

We have a tendency to look to an institution's origins to inform us on resolving contemporary issues.

Their death, their salvation

The CNN piece "A safe place to drink, or just giving up?" depicts wethouse residents while asking, "Are wet houses a way to keep late-stage alcoholics safe, or do they just give up on a treatable disease?"

When considering the former answer, the author suggests that residents are being kept from the streets and the streets are being kept from the potentially destructive residents. When considering the latter answer, the article reveals that a resident interviewed in the piece subsequently died, and that death there is common. Additionally, quotes supporting each answer are collected from two professionals in the health and treatment industry.

The article's question isn't answered explicitly, but the primary conclusion was made long before its words were committed to paper: That these residents are symbols of tragedy and shame whose salvation comes from health professionals.

The residents depicted in the article feel tremendous guilt for the personal and public costs of their living. The article discusses each man's loneliness and poverty, and it summarizes the tax savings wethouses can bring by avoiding hospitalization and incarceration.

In all, the article (1) emphasizes the self-shaming felt by those of fail to embody the esteemed value and ideology of self-reliance, and (2) re-establishes modern medicine and psychology as the valid and dominant sources of that ideology, and as leaders in prescribing correct ways of living.


Article discussed: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/11/minneapolis.wethouse.alcoholics/

The financial bleeding won’t stop with bin Laden’s demise

The author of Bloomberg's article "Bin Laden’s Death Won’t End Toll on Taxpayers" took dramatic license. I especially appreciate these lines:

Even in death, Osama bin Laden will be taking revenge on American taxpayers for years to come ...

... One of every four dollars in red ink the U.S. expects to incur in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 will result from $285 billion in annual spending triggered by the terrorist scion of a wealthy Saudi family ...

... Indeed, the meter didn’t stop running May 2 when bin Laden’s corpse slipped into the Arabian Sea ...

...  The government’s finances also will groan beneath the weight of the Department of Homeland Security, the 216,000- employee bureaucracy created to protect Americans from additional terrorist attacks ...

... And small erosions of personal liberty, conceded in the interests of security, may yet deepen ...

And, finally,

... Not since the early days of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union threatened, has an enemy so bedeviled Americans and their leaders. Where once children prepared for nuclear war with “duck and cover” drills, Americans after Sept. 11 stockpiled duct tape and canned food ...

While the prose here is unique among political articles and the numbers therein are stunning, the validity of the decisions behind these outrageous expenditures goes unexamined. The author treats the costs as a natural occurrence rather than symptomatic of bad, corrupt politics. Worse, the conclusion whitewashes the last decade by pretending the nation's middle and lower classes are not right now suffering from unemployment and inflation as city, state, and federal budget gutting hacks away our standard of living. If bin Laden hoped to bankrupt the country, the monies spent in his name combined with Wall Street's crimes may just well do the job.


* The title is taken from the article discussed: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/bin-laden-s-death-won-t-end-toll-on-taxpayers.html

The Wrestler

It is not a role; it is not even an alter ego. In the film The Wrestler, professional wrestler Robin Ramzinski's in-the-ring persona, Randy "The Ram" Robinson, is real. It's who he is.

"The Ram" fights larger-than-life villains, endures incredible punishment, and absorbs the adulation of fans. His life is high drama. But the needs and ego of such a character render the man outside the ring dysfunctional. He can't sustain a relationship or a job because each demands that he recognize the needs of others and endure punishments that are less physical and bloody but real nevertheless--and often less dignified.

And as the times change and his original fans move on, the limbo known as life between matches gets longer and harder. By the time the film begins, Randy is already nearly invisible, sleeping in a van in a trailer park, far out from under the lights of the ring. By contrast we see Randy's fictional former arch enemy "The Sheik", who now runs a successful car dealership. When he returns for a reunion match, "The Sheik" is thinking business because that's his life now.

We don't know why or how Robin became Randy so completely. The Wrestler just gives us a biographical glimpse of professional wrestler Robin Ramzinski in the twilight of his career. But as far as Randy "The Ram" is concerned, this is simply the end.

Sounds of silence

Regarding the United State's use of torture, The Christian Science Monitor's May 5 article "Did harsh interrogation tactics help US find Osama bin Laden?" posits that "The key question in the debate is whether the use of harsh interrogation techniques – including waterboarding – helped hasten the identification of Kuwaiti, and eventually the operation against bin Laden." This is the key question in current media coverage.

Progressive critics often point out that media discussions of drones over Pakistan, war, and torture ignore the moral and ethical issues, opting instead to discuss tactical effectiveness and monetary costs. These critics conclude that, because publicly funded military action abroad keeps the cost of business low at home (and keeps payoffs from defense contracts high), the interests of media's corporate parentage discourage moral and ethical examinations of what are likely untenable positions. Note that the benefits of low costs should extend to consumers, in theory, but during a time of high inflation and record corporate profits, those benefits are sucked up before the point of sale on Main Street.

True, the media does not engage in moral and ethical debates on these issues. But, for no reason, let's intentionally try to think of another reason why this could be.

It may be partly financial. But, also, the would-be ethics and morals involved here may be relative to the times. So, for example, it could be that peace was once a primary American value, but is no longer, coming in second now to convenience and affordability in regards to quality of life. The status of values shift in importance. Or perhaps the gap in moral and ethical examination is simply symptomatic of a bottom line culture.

Or, maybe it's not that reporters and writers keep thinking "I must spin this in the company's favor", but that they instead aren't thinking at all.

CSM article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/02/neil-macdonald-osama-bin-laden.html

Kids today

In The New York Times article "A Generation’s Vanity, Heard Through Lyrics", the author says that today's lyrics are a different animal from those of the past, but he stops just short of explicitly agreeing with Dr. Dewall's conclusion that “Late adolescents and college students love themselves more today than ever before". But he indicates his willingness to accept this claim by giving final say to a researcher who supports it.

At best, this study might yield a very loose hypothesis. But adopting this hypothesis requires a tremendous leap because the assumptions behind it are many. Among them are that (1) the Billboard charts accurately reflect listener demographics and (2) lyrics to popular songs reflect listeners' state of mind, thoughts, and attitudes. These two assumptions, which are chief among the many, are themselves deeply flawed.

So why give precious column space to this?

What privileged generation hasn't put subsequent generations under the spotlight and declared them immoral, worthless, and devoid of any real substance? Hey, generation who reads the NYT, it's your turn.

The article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/science/26tier.html

2000 changed us

President Obama responded to questions about his citizenship by releasing his long-form birth certificate. The questioners were of two varieties: (1) His critics, led by rich guy and media personality Donald Trump, and (2) the media, who served as the critics' mouthpiece by voicing these questions uncritically.

Last week's drama showed us a powerful man being bullied, and ultimately the peer pressure got him. He had many options for how to or not to respond, but this was not a game he could win. If Obama continued ignoring the birth certificate issue, it would have dogged him, perhaps even stained his legacy. His critics created this rhetorical situation; in his response, a quick morning press conference, the President hoped to deflate critics by framing their preoccupation with his birth certificate as a petty distraction against a backdrop of serious issues: Unemployment, inflation, increasing poverty, decreasing wages, budget and class wars. Obama still failed to make this point.

Some observers accuse his critics, called "birthers”, of racism, of casting Obama as The Other. Probably some of them are racists. But more to the point, I see doubts about his citizenship as attacks on his legitimacy. He’s not my President, they say. The motivation is partisanship more than racism.

In the wake of the 2000 election, about half the voting public remained unconvinced of George W. Bush’s legitimacy. Hell, they questioned his legitimacy as a Texan.

The legitimacy of power should be called into question. Problem is, it isn’t the President who is in power.

To define

The recent NPR report about Wikileaks' Gitmo dump referred to the site as an "anti-secrecy website". The CNN report labeled Wikileaks "an organization that facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information"; I think this is their official stance. The Wikipedia article defines Wikileaks as "an international non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers".

Why "anti-secrecy" instead of "pro-transparency"? Why highlight anonymity, and not whistleblowing, or exposing, or any other facet of the issue? Because when a label or definition is chosen, the chooser seeks to communicate something about the signified.

Our PR dollars at work

At a recent fundraiser in LA the President attributed his currently low poll approval rating to high gas prices and then, paraphrasing various messages he hears from voters, assured his supporters that, because Americans have values that align with his policy goals, eventually they'll come back to him. He said, according to the White House transcript:

Look, if I wasn’t professionally in this, I wouldn’t be following all these debates in Washington. But when you talk to them about their values, what they care about, then they say, "Of course, we should make sure every child has a good education and gets opportunity," and, "Absolutely, we’ve got to make sure that our commitments to seniors are met," and, "Of course, we want a family whose child has a disability to make sure that child is getting everything possible to allow them to succeed." And, "Yes, internationally, we want to stand on the side of human rights and democracy." And, "We understand the world is complicated, but we have a vision about what America should be in the world and we want to live up to that." And, "Yes, government should live within its means, but we think we can live within its means and still ensure that we’re delivering for the next generation." I have faith in them.

These are values, sure. But first they are the rhetoric of an ideology in support of (1) socialized government services and (2) American intervention. What he is quoting are the voices of people quoting ideological rhetoric. In other words, Of course we should continue taxing and funding public schools, taxing and funding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, taxing and funding regime makeovers. The President's quoting the people quoting the marketing of these programs and policies is wonderful.

The WH transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/22/remarks-president-dnc-event

The Memory of Running by Ron McLarty

Currently reading The Memory of Running by Ron McLarty. The protagonist, Smithy Ide, loathes himself, but with an "Aw shucks" stripe. He alternates attempts at modesty with self recriminations. His intelligence and weight make his two favorite targets.

Smithy's obtuseness might reflect his stunted confidence more so than real stupidity. Time will tell, though, as he's clearly on an arc, at this point in the novel being halfway across the country on a bicycle trip.

This journey will no doubt lead him back to the skinny body he inhabited in his youth. Smithy's overweight adult body seems foreign to him. He negotiates his fat legs like they were a prosthesis and recoils at his gut as if he's found himself dressed in some sad Christmas sweater. Emotionally, he's no better off. He demonstrates zero self-awareness, often repeating things that other people say to him as if he is unsure he understood them and can't access his response.

This can be grating, in a way; Smithy's attempts to talk to Norma, a crippled neighbor woman who has lived trapped in her own house since about age ten, are nearly insufferable strings of non sequiturs, aborted statements, and long-suppressed confessions. I think these dialogs chronicling their budding love are meant to be touching. Somehow.

The book reads pretty easy but isn't all that enjoyable. Smithy operates off some deeply ingrained values and assumptions, and I wish he'd pause to consider this consciously. Anyway, holding out hope for a good twist.

The revolution that surprised the world, and then was quickly forgotten

Just a few weeks ago a pro-Democracy revolution in Egypt successfully ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak. The military then assumed power and its leaders who before served faithfully under the autocrat have since ruled the population heavy-handed, jailing the same protesters the press and government so recently and so reluctantly supported. I struggled to find an article about this in the mainstream press, but eventually stumbled on an April 14 article in The New York Times headlined "Egyptian Military to Review Cases of Jailed Protesters".

The treatment in this article is representative of mainstream coverage. First, the story is buried. Second, it includes portions of each side's statements, but doesn't bother looking into either. Third, the title serves the ends of the favored party in the dispute--in this case, the bought-and-paid-for Egyptian military, whose statement is treated as fact. The meat of the story is this line, however, which lies hidden in the article's waistband: "More than 200 protesters have been detained, tortured or put on trial before military courts in the past several weeks, rights advocates said." This statement is not given the same benefit of the doubt.

The article discussed: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/middleeast/15egypt.html

A right to life, a right to die

This week a single mother was convicted of murdering her nine year old, low-functioning autistic son by withholding his chemotherapy medication. In October 2006 he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma; by February 2008 the crime had been discovered and the boy was placed in his father's custody; a year later, he died.

In her defense the woman claimed she was overwhelmed by her own struggle with depression and her role as a depressed mother with few resources who is solely responsible for a severely sick, disabled child. In other words, she threw herself at the mercy of the court. Of course the prosecution claimed she decided to let the child die; incidentally, this could also have been her defense: That she chose death over life--life being where the state exercised its will, and death, where she exercised hers. It could have been a civil rights issue. Regardless, a few members of the jury have since made statements about their attempts to sympathize with her situation.

I come away with two primary impressions:
(1) She never really owned her child; though he lived with her a time, the state apparently had the prevailing interest in his life (for his sake, of course), making him its ward, subject to its rule;
(2) If the state has part ownership of the child, it also has a responsibility to raise the child; if it will not, then it must provide adequate resources to those who will.

The second point holds even if the facts of this specific case require us to punish the mother.

One report: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/04/15/massachusetts.mother.murder/
Another: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghGhsTkTI_Jwn4Y7OOcEDU_gOt1Q?docId=d0923b05603b4faa8d8287fe9ebafaf7

How does his new stuff stack up against the old? I don't really care.

Last week I heard Paul Simon's new album, So Beautiful or So What, reviewed twice on NPR. The first reviewer withholds a definitive verdict on the music. He does, however, imply that Simon may have worn out his once fruitful formulas, and that he relies now more on craftiness than sincerity. Then the review mysteriously concludes with,

Whatever the reason, Paul Simon has made an album that succeeds in blending the two best strands of his solo career: the articulate navel-gazing of his 1972 solo debut and Graceland's 25-year-old rhymin' Simon in rhythm. And only a few songs here could use the heavy hand of a rewrite.

The second reviewer offers praise after first wondering if Simon has yet again rehashed his summit solo effort, Graceland. That's yet another way of asking if Simon has worn out his once fruitful formulas, and does he rely now on craftiness instead of sincerity? The second reviewer concludes,

Maybe these familiar echoes, ghosts of past glories, are inevitable. Maybe, as happens to so many elder statesmen of pop, Simon's best work is in the past. Here's all I know: Whenever my attention drifted while listening to this mixed bag of a record, along would come a stark insight, delivered in a tone of cool ambivalence — the audio equivalent of a tug on the sleeve. That's what is so interesting about this album. It's all "Meh," "So what?" and "Heard that one before." Until, quite suddenly, it's so beautiful.

Both reviewers focus primarily on uncovering the artist's motives. Neither wants to be fooled. They elaborate on what personal drama may be unfolding behind the music rather than on what the music supposedly sounds like and whether they enjoy the sounds they hear. And both assume Simon was once in an ideal state--that of The Sincere Artist.

Often, the art critic seeks an understanding with the artist. In this case, the critics want to know that the artist has taken his own music as seriously as they do. A critic may fault a work or its artist by saying that the work failed to achieve what it meant to achieve; this is a kind of positive criticism in that the work is to be taken seriously despite its faults. A negative criticism, for example, would say that a work takes itself too seriously. Sometimes a work or artist is dismissed outright: "You can't expect me to take this seriously?"

I don't.

First review: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135112880/paul-simon-back-in-graceland-with-so-beautiful
Second review: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/11/135319218/paul-simon-old-sounds-new-perspectives

Enlightening Limits

Sizing up the limits of thought proposed during the Enlightenment and urging us to peek at what lies beyond, Michel Foucault poses a very Foucauldian question to himself about such a brief investigation:

If we limit ourselves to this type of always partial or local inquiry or test, do we not run the risk of letting ourselves be determined by more general structures of which we may well not be conscious, and over which we have no control?

His answer is priceless:

 ...it is true ... we are always in the position of beginning again. 

But that does not mean that no work can be done except in disorder and contingency. The work in question has its generality, its systematicity, its homogeneity, and its stakes.

In other words, Yes, we run the risk. But I have my ways.

These quotes come from his brief 1984 piece titled What is the Enlightenment? The question dates from 1784: That year a German paper posed the question and Immanuel Kant answered. In his response to Kant, Foucault proposes that our modern mode of self-reflection took shape then, and he notes the existence and implications of the shaping mechanisms. The Enlightenment, according to Foucault, is essentially an attitude. Several pages in, though, he tosses off this nugget: "Criticism indeed consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits".

None of his major points hinge on this statement, but I'm really taken with it.

My first thought is that limits make originality possible. Describing a work of art as "original" is often high praise. But something may be original and not necessarily good; agreed? Critics also often assert that a work of art has value when it advances a conversation--conversations about humanity, time, life, sports, religion, whatever. And advancement means moving beyond where we are at present, being presently at the limit, and as far as we have gotten. But a work of art and its critiques may also center on how the work functions within and comments on pre-established limits. Perhaps a work could even impose limits on itself. In these ways a work of art, be it a song, painting, a dance or film, for example, may not necessarily qualify as original.

Criticism of policy may also concern limits. Who is excluded from the policy? How does the policy work? and, How far reaching are its implication?

Criticism indeed consists largely of analyzing and reflecting upon limits.

Reeves, K.

Some claim Keannu Reeves can't act. I disagree. I propose that his supposed lack of range has as much or more to do with the roles he has played rather than his abilities as an actor. We remember three of his roles now.

First, rookie FBI agent Johnny Utah in 1991's "Point Break". Reeves plays Utah as serious, hyper-focused, a newbie who approaches work professionally and seeks professional respect. Professionalism for him means going by the book--the playbook, that is, because it turns out Utah played quarterback at Ohio State University. His brief moment in the spotlight gave him confidence. But he's not the boastful sort, having had his football career cut short by a knee injury. This injury humbled him, and he copes with the loss of status by throwing himself into his work. With his high-profile quarterbacking days behind him, the new thrill and freedom he finds with the Ex-Presidents gang revives in him the taste for a more glamorous life--a life like he once lived at OSU. So he falls hard for bandit life. I think Reeves conveys all this and more.

Second: Have you ever watched a little white mouse sniff around the inside of a snake cage? This mouse moves with a light but distinct sense of caution, although he doesn't quite understand why. This is exactly how Reeves plays Jonathan Harker, an English estate agent and soliciter assigned to Dracula's account in the 1992 film about the man, directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Agent Utah had none of the subdued fear that Reeves expresses as Harker, whose standoffishness hides sensitivity.

Third, consider Neo in "The Matrix". Here, I see Reeves for the first time playing a blank slate. This strategy allows the audience to project themselves onto his character, Neo. Before he is annointed Neo, we know Reeve's character as Thomas A. Anderson, a shift-working office nobody stuck in the colorless cubicle we call life. He's you and me: Bored and unfullfilled and hoping in his heart of hearts that he's better than average, an innocent victim waiting for a break in the monotony. We want to play a part in the revolution against meaninglessness and slavery; feeling the present one inadequate, we pine for a real life. A real and authentic life. We see our own possibility in Neo just as children see theirs in Alice and see a world of Wonder and Truth on the other side of the looking glass, see it down the rabbit hole.

Keannu acts. I don't know his range, but I believe right now that during his rise to stardom his work was underappreciated.