Howard Beale in Reptillian Form

In 1976, the film Network was released onto the world to great acclaim.  A dark and satirical look at media manipulation, it won its writer, Paddy Chafesky, a screenwriting Oscar and cemented itself as one of the best movies of all time.  The central character, Howard Beale, was a television news anchor pushed beyond breaking point.  His memorable speech, delivered with the acqueisence of ratings chasing executives to a nationwide audience, is the articulation of the public’s rage at the way things have turned out.

In 1976 this was seen as a dystopian warning.  Beale is mad; totally and utterly lost.  His ‘refreshing’ frankness and hold over the public are ruthlessly exploited by executives chasing after ratings.  Network is a warning about a future where the media manipulates political movements, but there are those however who must have seen the film and thought it to be a blueprint.

Take Glenn Beck (don’t watch it all…you’ll get the impression quickly):

This is a fairly mild version of Beck’s oeuvre, but it is a clear recitation of his principles.  The parrallels with Beale (who Beck says he identifies with) and Network are also clear.  Remembering that Beck is a media commentator with his own 5pm timeslot every week night, and not a political activist being interviewed by the media is hard.   He has developed his own ‘movement’ known as 9/12 project, and deliver regular sermons (and I use this word deliberately) on his show.  A long list of conspiracies have graced his program, including; that Barack Obama is not an American citizen, that the healthcare reform bill includes provision for death panels, and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was creating concetration camps for concervatives.  He was also one of the principle media supporters of the Tax Day “Tea-Bagger” rallies.

The problem with the 9-12 Project, the Tea-Baggers and other followers of these hectoring, overblown ‘personalities’ is that they are inured to critical reflection.  Any criticism, however reasoned, of the host is seen as an attack on the credibility, the faith, the very reality of the hosts admirers.  The criticism is not merely a disagreement over policy or the balance of interests in a community; it is a moral affront, a wholesale attack on ‘our values’ and an attempt to deny self-evident ‘truths’.  The healthcare debate is a prime example – where reasonable disagreement over the best way to provision healthcare to society has disintegrated into claims and counter claims of facism and totalitarianism.  Reasonable debate is lost in a sea of conviction-politics.

And Glenn Beck is at the centre of it.  The quasi-religious nature of the 9-12 political movement becomes obvious once we recognise the symptoms.  The charismatic personality with seemingly radical and persecuted views.  The sermons.  The exhortation to DO something!  The conviction that those opposed to the movement, even merely opposed to its methods if sympathetic to its aims, are unremittingly evil.

The supreme irony of course is that while Beck may compare himself to Beale – he is the polar opposite.  Both simultaneously don the garb of the everyman and the vaudeville entertainer to preach their sermon, but their sermon is very different.  Beale rails against the corporatisation of the media, and Network follows him there.  He is invested in getting people to switch their televisions off…to stop watching the simple soundbites and mindless platitudes of television and engage with their community.

Beck, on the other hand is deeply invested in a highly conservative narrative which holds  economic freedom, cultural conformity and political security to be self-evident truths and totally inviolable rights.  He needs his viewers to keep watching, so that he can deliver the “fusion of entertainment and enlightenment” that they need to take back their country for the socialists and fascists who inhabit the White House.  The oft-implied message is that without Beck his viewers would no longer have a vessel for their anger.

The question of course is what effect Beck will ultimately have.  With a daily viewership of 2.3 million (more than any other cable news show) he is certainly entertaining someone.  The real worry is that he might also ‘enlighten’ them.

Computers and Ethics, Part 2: Gov2.0 and Participation

So, as I said previously, there is a growing movement in Australia and elsewhere in the world for an electronic, online approach to governance issues (voting, policy, community consultation, access to MPs/congresspeople,  government data and standards etc.), all falling under a broad heading of Gov2.0.  This loose definition above can be contested, and has been, but the drive always seems to be the same: open up government by putting it on the web.  The proposals can be reflected in recent work by Senator Kate Lundy of the ACT and her staff, regarding examples of Gov 2.0:

• Using GeoSpatial data to display the most accessible government services available to a young mother in Cowra.
• Using social media tools for constituent consultation on a new government proposal or legislative draft.
• A government agency making some of its data publicly accessible, and then working collaboratively with the broader community and industry in preparation for/the midst of an emergency situation. (full article here)

I attended the first of the “Public Sphere” meetings Lundy and Waugh reference in the article, and came home with mixed opinions.   The message that came through was that Gov2.0 shows immense promise for connecting citizens more or less directly to their MPs and beyond to engage in political consultation.  This can be done anywhere from the grass roots level all the way through to the highest level of government, such as Kevin Rudd’s own personal twitter page.

So far, so good.  My problem comes under what is popularly known as the digital divide (DD).  Broadly understood, the DD is a reflection of the difference between the portion of individuals in a community who are competent, current users of digital technologies, and those who aren’t.  This is to be understood not only as people who have access to technology, but those who can use it competently.   How we measure the digital divide is contentious, but the results should be pretty clear from the Wikipedia page, and its associated content– while shrinking rapidly, it is still a problem.

Now, without Gov2.0, bridging the digital divide may be seen as an act that it would be a net good to perform.  But with Gov2.0, it becomes a obligation.  Look at it this way:  from the perspective of most liberal approaches to justice, democratic participation is a strongly protected right.  Moreover, every individual must have the maximum amount of democratic participation conducive to everyone else having the same amount.  That’s pretty Rawlsian, yes, but I’m confident most liberals won’t disagree when it comes to the good of democratic participation.  So, if Gov2.0 wants to make this participation primarily online, people have to have it societally assured.  Everyone given the vote must have the opportunity to exercise it equal to others.  If they don’t choose to, that’s something else entirely.  But to give preference to some (richer people with more access to ICTs) over others strikes a problematic chord.

Of course, the NBN will go a long way to helping this, but hardware access will also be a part.  Smartphones will also play a part, but some of this hardware may well become an obligation to provide, just to participate in the game of democracy.   The famous $100 laptop will also help, but will need serious policy to develop.  ”One laptop, one child” will need to be supplemented with “one vote, one laptop, one citizen of legal voting age.”

In addition, this isn’t necessarily particular to Gov2.0.  But as something that is being touted as a revolution, it should at least seek to debug the problems from the older versions of democracy, rather than just patching new, exciting features over the preexisting flaws.

Computers and Ethics, Part 1

Quickly, a welcome to our new site.  We’re still making changes, adding widgets, doing up colour schemes, but it is really going to be quite snazzy.  But, on with the show.

This is part one of a series of posts I’ll be writing about this topic, adding and changing my views as I go.  It is one that I’ve become progressively more interested in over the last few weeks, and I think there is much to be said in this area.

The Gov2.0 lobby is starting to pick up speed in the west, as more and more countries start to integrate social media, structured information, open source information, collaborative projects to integrate public participation into policy, and more, the word that often gets thrown out there is innovation. Innovation is the key, it seems, to this program—allow individuals the freedom to do, make, and be what and who they want in the context of personal communications and public interaction, and the world will become a better place.  Not only that, but the world will become a better place as people are empowered to make their world and the world of other people a better place.  It sounds great.

The main setback it seems is government itself.  Governments for the most part are conservative organisations that, through prudence involved with antiquated means of dealing with public life with slow response times; the problems of passing policy; and the traditional gambit of traits the make up human self-interest are all hugely problematic for progressive policy planning.  Especially when the call is for opening up the halls of government through unprecedented transparency and community involvement.  And then, the phrase that is born is “there is no innovation without risk.”

So far, this all seems to run together with common sense modern liberal ideas.  But my question is: risk for whom?  The traditional bearers of this risk, it seems the Gov2.0 people are hinting at, is the risk bureaucrats and politicians see for themselves.  In part, this is understandable—few people want their dirty laundry aired against their will.  But that’s more or less the price one pays for politics, at least in an ideal world.

What I plan to do over the next few weeks is discuss some other risks that might come about with this hyperconnected, always-on world.  I don’t plan on being purely critical—after all, cynicism never gets anyone anywhere.  But it would help to talk about the risks involved in this project.  There are solutions, and I plan to talk about these too.  But if we only focus on solutions, we might neglect some solid searching for some very real and important problems.   I might add that gov2.0 is not the only part of this project, and that much of what I will talk about is generally applicable to our rapidly technologised society.

Nietzsche’s Children Or Lonely Boys?

Kind of following on from Riuex’s recent post on Conan, I thought I would post a link to this documentary. It looks at Norwegian Black Metal, with a particular focus on Gaahl, singer and multiple felon.

What is interesting (aside from the Black Metal – some choice music cuts are to be heard on there) is the Nietzschean angle that these kids often take. i.e. One of the ubermensch, and the duty to transcend conventional human values etc. The question is, do people like Gaahl actually get Nietzsche, or do they just need a hug?*

* It should be pointed out that Gaahl has stated that he doesn’t have a lot in common with Nietzsche, despite releasing an album called ‘Twighlight Of The Idols‘.

What is best in life…

Rawls’ famously suggests that persons are free and equal by virtue of their having two ‘moral powers’. The first is a sense of justice, understand as:

…the capacity to understand, to apply, and to act from the public conception of justice which characterises the fair terms of social cooperation….a sense of justice also expresses a willingness, if not the desire, to act in relation to others on terms that they also can publicly endorse

Essentially this limits our desire for instituting systems which infringe upon each others liberty…i.e. by allowing power to be concentrated in the hands of a few, or instituting discriminatory practices which leave the worst-off in states of abject poverty for the greater glory of the majority.

The second moral power, is the cacpity to have a conception of the good, or:

…the capacity to form, to revise, and to rationally pursue a conception of one’s rational advantage or good.

Essentially we can understand how we form these conceptions as the perennial question, commonly asked of young men on the open steppes: “What is best in life?”

In view of Conan’s musings, what are we to say about his fitness as an equal and free person, and the tenability of Rawls’ political liberalism (on the open steppes, or elsewhere)? Certainly Conan has a conception of the good: crushing enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women. Tick for Conan.

But would Conan publicly endorse his concept of the good as being reasonable? Obviosuly he thinks it is perfectly reasonable from his current position in the social order (sitting on that lovely throne of his). It is debatable, however, whether he would be as keen for slaughter if he didn’t know what his position in the social order would be and whether his conception of the good would include the pleasures of pillage. But he might…indeed much like feudal systems of yore, the worst-off in ‘Barbarian’ society might be strongly resigned to the divine justice of a might-makes-right philosophy. The justice of death at the hands of Conan might be reasonable and rational…but probably not.

In any case, Conan the Barbarian shouldn’t be acting as our representative when formulating the social order – atleast if we want Rawls’s version of it. In fact putting Conan in a position of any political power would be an act of collective madness. Only a society so enamoured with the reflected glow of the powerful that it wishes for and actively encourages the accumulation of power and wealth in the hands of a small minority would conceive of such a scheme….

Satan’s Game

Thought I’d not rant about how the health care saga continue to turn into bizarro world, but rather on something that comes from a place rather closer to my heart.

I’m an avid fan of Jerry “Tycho” Holkins and Mike “Gabe” Krahulik and their long-running comic strip Penny Arcade. Today they linked to a story about a man who attempted to kill two friends of his with a hammer. The story describes how the man apparently got into some form of violent rage, and in the article motive was assigned to two things: 1) a Dungeons and Dragons game gone wrong; and 2) a girl. Horrific to be sure, but mundane in a sense — people kill each other for much, much less. The story is a month old, the original article reporting financial issues as part of the motive. The guy it seems, has a pretty rough life, is a missionary of some sort, which can be hard on people, and it was claimed completely uncharacteristic of him. Pretty standard really.

What seems to have Holkins incredulous is the apparent blaming of the attack on Dungeons and Dragons. The comments section seems to be following (or preceding, I haven’t checked the time stamps rigourously) Holkins’ lead. Now, the moral panic over Dungeons and Dragons seems to be a particular piece of American history, and something I’m not personally familiar with (apart from this hilarious depiction). But I can’t see the implication. The piece explains that motive was established as involving D&D. That’s a correlation, certainly, and there are causal elements to it, but it certainly doesn’t follow that the implication is that D&D causes people to bash each other in the head with hammers. What does follow is that this particular individual, by a particular game, was lead to do this. He’s still culpable, and it doesn’t line D&D up for the burning. If you replaced every instance of D&D with “card,” we’d have a poker player gone mad. That’s not something we’d blame poker on.

What D&D does cop is its status as an involved game. D&D is an involved pursuit. No more than philosophy (recall Popper and Wittgenstein), football, or finance. I can understand the concern at the future construal of D&D as “Satan’s game” considering the events of the past, but I don’t believe that this article presented that facet. In fact, the comments seem to indicate that the people most concerned about this are D&D players. The rest of the comments were along the lines of “this guy is a crazy person, chill out!” As to the status quo comment response that follows the line: “I play D&D, I haven’t brutalised anyone, therefore D&D doesn’t make you brutalise people,” — that doesn’t follow either. D&D can lead to you brutalising people. It can be a direct causal factor in leading to someone snapping. How do we know? Because this is the motive established. But it is just that – a motive. It doesn’t follow that arguments like the one Langton has used on pornography (more specifically, sexualised violence in pornography).

Why is this of so much interest to me? Because in liberal society we seem to suffer this problem. Hell, forget liberal, as people we suffer from this distinction’s nuances tripping us up. As it is, most of my thesis revolves around a non-D&D (unfortuantely, it’d be so much fun to write a thesis on the ethics of gaming) version of this. Scientists claim that they haven’t exploited or subjugated a population with science, therefore science doesn’t cause this. It may not cause in the sense that it alone creates the disposition to subjugate, but it certainly fulffils a causal process. Its parsing this that interests me, because humans are notoriously bad at cause/correlation and necessary/sufficient distinctions, and we get wrapped in them very easy.

Maybe the article is stating that D&D is once again Satan’s game. I don’t believe so, I believe it is stating that this person had it as a causal contributor to some pretty horrific stuff. I approach it with the same level of interest that I do science, football and philosophy being causal factors in terrible things. But that’s the mens rea. That’s what it is all about.

Discuss.

EDIT: My apologies, that’s a Legal Fail. Motive and Intent are distinct in modern law, with mens rea covering the latter. Carry on.

Oh, PPS, I’m thinking I’ll change the drapes on this site soon. The brown is getting to me.

The latest in a string of riciulous moves.

So the picture to the right appeared this morning on Digg. I must say, this little piece of rhetoric from the right has gone beyond the traditional rhetoric of the free market, and into something a little bit more crazy.

The pamphlet is distributed by a lobby group, LaRouche Political Action Comittee. LaRouche has cited that the US health system reforms proposed by Obama and his cabinet are akin to the eugenics programs of the Nazi Party in the lead up to and druing the second world war. Their justification (based on my understanding of this video)

1. The German eugenics program pre-world war two involved a panel of experts to decide who was clinically unfit to foster the German people.  Obama’s new healthcare will be streamlined and rationing decisions will be made by a panel of experts (because of limited resources and a large distribution problems).  The existence of this panel of experts, much like the panel of experts in Hitler’s regime means Obama is evidently a facist.
2. The creation of an independent board of experts to oversee health reforms is beyond congressional oversight, and thus is the sign of a dictator.

Now, if I remember correctly, this board that is being set up is in direct response to republican concern that medical treatments would be distributed by non-professionals.  As it is, although Peter Orszag proposed the new board, he is not on it.  If Ezekiel Emmanuel is on it, his “fascist” tendencies come from a number of articles he’s written over the years about the allocation of medical resources when we can’t meet all required needs.

Because the market so obviously can meet those needs.

Have a look if you can stomach it.  I’m a bit too busy on this particular day to trawl through all the mindless rhetorical maneuvering that goes on in the video.  The sad thing of it is, most people who see that flier aren’t likely to follow it around the webs tracking down what’s moving underneath.  Its just another piece of lunacy by those who believe in freedom (TM).

I love drugs

So, I am in the Netherlands, the oft claimed home of drugs and hookers, and was sitting in my room, reading this article from the UK Times about ‘love shyness‘. In essence, this is supposedly an emergent phenomenon (very very weak epistemological emergence, if you could even call it emergence) whereby a bunch of lonely adult males piss and moan about the fact that they were ten years old when had their last girlfriend. Observe:

John has been in love. “Probably just the once. When I was 10 there was this girl I really liked. She was younger than me, so when I went to secondary school I lost contact with her and never saw her again.” He has an enduring memory of playing outside with the girl, and of the sun slowly going down, and never feeling happier. In fantasy he often takes the memory further and, imagining himself as a child again, he kisses her.

Now, this is clearly indicative of some deep seated emotional abnormality, and I don’t mean to be cold hearted and lacking empathy when thinking about this – clearly I read this article for a reason, and if I am in a culture renowned for its liberal approach social norms yet sitting inside and reading newspaper articles, I think it safe to say that I am not the most successful pants-man who strode the earth. But then I read this section, and my humour and cynicism and bitterness returned:

Seb says the first step to getting better is recognising that something is wrong and the label helps with that. “I believe LS can be overcome,” he says, “but it’s a long, hard road.”

There are drugs to treat shyness, mainstream antidepressants such as Paxil. But the many possible side-effects include sweating, nausea, lowered libido and suicidal tendencies

Nice. You want to treat a problem that has depression and sexual relations central to it, by application of medications known to lower libido and increase suicidal tendencies? And make the people sweaty and nauseous while on dates? Nice thinking, arse-clown. Maybe just force these guys to smoke Ice and give them a handgun. Might solve their problems, sure it might also have some negative side effects, but hey, as long as we’re helping these people, who cares what happens to them.

Which brings me to the vague point of these ramblings – that labelling of socially non-standard behaviour dances easily to the music of medicalization, which as i’m sure we all know is perhaps not the best solution to a given set of problems: I’m lonely, cold inside and my last girlfriend was an eight year-old, twenty-two years ago. Clearly I need drugs to find love.

The words ‘parasite’ and ‘exploitation’ seem to bounce around in my head for some strange reason.

US and Health Care Reform…WTF?

Speaking of health care reform, and failing empires, and following Nick’s lead, I am going to post some link to a tv show that expresses myself for me.

But before clicking mice and staring vacantly, I just have to ask, WTF is going on in that country? The standard rhetoric of opponents to health care reform in the US seems to claim that

a) a government bureaucrat will make your health care decisions for you

b) anything the government runs is inefficient

c) a citizen’s taxes shouldn’t be spent on something that doesn’t directly benefit them

Let me just point out the bleeding obvious

a) in the US most health care decisions are made by an insurance company, often hired by the patient’s boss. Yes. That sounds fair and equal – an industry designed to make money by restricting services to life’s necessities, (and by that I mean living) coupled with the idea that if you get sick, you lose your job, and so lose your health care. And die. Dang. But at least its not the government. Because that would be socialism, and that is evil.

b) The US currently spends 15.3% of GDP on health care (more than double the OECD median), yet comes in at 50th in terms of life expectancy per birth, compared to all other countries. Yes! That’s efficiency!

c) The list of wasted tax dollars in the US would make a British MP blush. This list could go on for ever, but two immediate examples spring to mind. 1 – The cost of the Iraq war: almost US$ 900 Million. 2- The cost of corn subsidies: US$ 56 Billion (1995- 2006). Tax dollars going to kill people (around 500 Iraqs per day) and citizen soldiers (4,331) in overseas wars and cheaper junk food that probably kills them at home. That’s directly beneficial.

I just don’t understand how people swallow the steaming pile of lies that is being shat out upon them. It boggles my mind. How? How? How? god, shoot me in the face with a big gun.

Anyway, this was meant to be short and to the point. The point being this little link to a tv show. Enjoy: The Daily Show on Health Care Morons.

Peace out.

Racism in America

A nice little piece of Colbert.  I thought it was a good depiction of how race is being dealt with in the US.

(Lifted from Lean Left.)

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word – He Who Smelt It, Dealt It
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Tasers