Publishing

A link.

Won't read it; won't cite it.

The right-wing Politico cesspool

I once thought that Politico would be a pernicious new addition to our rotted media culture. Instead, it actually provides a valuable service by packing every destructive and corrupt journalistic attribute, in its most vivid form, into one single cesspool.

More Beautifully

Digby says it all: Unreliable Narrators

I have always been one of those who felt that the country would be better off if we just had a news media that did its job. I didn't want our "own" network, so much as I wanted a functioning press corps. But if it was decided that the only thing to do was create a balance, I would have hoped it would be because of ideological sympathy, as Fox is, not because it is the latest fashion subject to change at the whim of a fickle public.

Far better than I tried to say it.

mythologies and responsibility

CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative

Corporate executives continuously suppressed critical reporting of the Government and the war and forced their paid reporters to mimic the administration line. The evidence proving that comes not from media critics or shrill left-wing bloggers but from those who work at these news outlets, including some of their best-known and highest-paid journalists who are attesting to such facts from first-hand knowledge despite its being in their interests not to speak out about such things.

Almost makes me feel bad that I'm boycotting the strongest Liberal voice on MSNBC.

But the problem remains: If Greenwald's argument is correct - that the corporate executives, or even "senior producers", were sculpting the news coverage during the build up to the war - there is no reason to think they have changed. Which makes me wonder how Olbermann was able to start a show in such a hostile climate. Perhaps they thought he would tank amidst the cute puppy clips and American Idol interviews. It certainly makes his show seem far less professional.

Olbermann, however, seemed to have pushed through much of the demeaning aspects with his powerful voice. In a way, it turned out to be perfect mirror of the American life. Would it be too much to generalize on behalf the country that most people want to go about their lives with puppies and American Idol? Political ignorance is bliss.

But when called by major events, Americans also expect to be able to exercise their freedom of speech. Moreover, they expect to be heard. Consumed by mythologies of individuals fighting against the machine, what else would we expect out of American? Rosa Park made an individual call - let's ignore the years of political organizing in her past. Cindy Sheehan was just a mother - let's ignore the politicized based that proved her with a network. So American, we might say, demand complancency - better, entertainment. But when it comes time to make the Reverean ride, we all like to think we would harken to the call.

What drives Olbermann's appeal, then, is not the special comments, but their relation to the other stuff - the silly and the exasperated. We know that we will only be subjected to political heaviness when there is need. The rest of the politic* will, at best, merely present the exasperated indifference of liberal mindedness. Of course, I'm not talking about world events like the tsunami or the war. American consume these facts in their own way. But political facts - even the tsunami or war, turned political - are bitter to our tastes.

We are, perhaps, unhealthy in our political skepticism. We don't trust any politic - and we are too quick to make gods or devils out of politicians. It's not that we don't like Moderates. But, pardon my boldness, instead we don't like the imperfect. And one reason seems to be that, in general, we don't like holding people responsible. With politicians either they are perfect or they are out. We don't let them do-what-they-do well, and then hold them responsible for their failings. There is no give and take. Rather we ignore their failings, or else ignore their successes. With our justice, justice is swift and sharp, and we either kill or knight.

We don't get these excesses with other fields. If America respects its political Democracy with absolutes, in other areas of responsibility we pass the buck. And our justice here is "The Market" (or Religion or some sort of Natural force). We can't imagine that a business would survive long running inefficiently - The Market would weed it out. Nor could a business survive not meeting the demands of its customers - Supply and Demand. So we can't imagine that a media outlet would present only half the story - The Market should have cut it's throat. And if there are a few bad-egg corporate executives or senior producers, well certainly something ought to have held them responsible. Right?

* Counting down the number of days since Mission Accomplished, updates of Bush Administration scandals, etc. Not to say that the don't provide interesting factoids. But if you aren't already convinced that these running scandals exist, then you're going to think that this presentation format is over-the-top and uninhibited in it's bias.

RTFM

Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with people. How did this book get published? Did you even read the fucking Meditations?

An inquiry into the human mind, on the principles of common sense By Thomas Reid
You can't make this argument without rejecting that premise that all mental operations are thoughts. If they all reduce to thoughts, then only "cogito, ergo sum". (which, btw, is not the form it appears in the Meditations.) Nothing else get's us out of the skeptical dilemma - and if it does, then it is not because of any property of the operation, but only because the operation reduces to basic cognition, thinking.

On the other hand, and this is established in the first fucking paragraph of the Meditations,
"the body" is not going to be strong enough to break through Cartesian skepticism because knowledge through senses are the first criterion rejected as insufficiently justified. In fact, Descartes deals with all of these obvious criticisms. All you have to do is read the fucking meditations.

Sorry, you lose. Do not pass go.

This, however, is a good objection, and is does not seem to be considered by Descartes.

An inquiry into the human mind, on the principles of common sense By Thomas Reid

An inquiry into the human mind, on the principles of common sense By Thomas Reid
Locke, however, does not solve the problem. Just because you cannot prove that the unity of the "I thinks" does not mean you have proven that they are not unifed. (Hume) Nor does it justify you in moving to a metaphoric concept - "consciousness" - just simply asserting that consciousness is a unified series of "I think"s.

Record of an Obscure Man ... By Mary Lowell Putnam

Record of an Obscure Man ... By Mary Lowell Putnam:
""

Record of an Obscure Man ... By Mary Lowell Putnam

Record of an Obscure Man ... By Mary Lowell Putnam:
""

More against surrealism

History met with the Surrealist's expectations, but not with their Reasons. It is hard to understand how Surrealism could be so blindly arrogant to write: "When the Surrealists were Right." They argued against the Communist International:

"Socialism is being built in only one country, you are told; consequently you must have blind confidence in the leader of that country. Whatever it may be that you object to, any hesitation on your part is criminal. This is the point we have reached, this is the intellectual freedom that is left us"

Perhaps they should have left out the possessive inclusion. It would have been more convincing, for they saw a valid error, but their remedy is, what?, "dashing down into the street, pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger, into the crowd"! No wonder they are ignored! To reject society is not to reject Others; but blindly firing is exactly that. It has no direction, no rhythm or reason; it is a psychopathy that Others, not just society, are justified in suppressing. And, with apologies to your dark-dark soul, there never was a private island, and even if there were, "dashing down into the street" is clearly not in pursuit of it.

more on surrealism

Thank God Andre Breton wrote books! Lost are a few hours he and his might affect the world. And what of infesting the mind? The only thing to find are one's own beliefs, certainly not an argument. Says Hume: "Condemn this to the flames."

To Breton:

If one is going to expound "until further notice" then one is going to preach; and in writing far worse, for those who do not want to produce argument are left with nothing but dominance.

returning

Jaimie has me into this L-word series. Are all series like this? You start with a great group of friends and relationships. Then they fall apart, and you spend the rest of the series trying to put it back together. And yet, not so oddly, I care.