N.O. Pundit

The Irreleventsia #3

I wouldn't say that I get all my news from Instapundit, just a hell of a lot of it. His post here underscores several failings of the Irreleventsia.

The administration is providing a Baghdad newsfeed directly to those local TV stations that want to pick it up. Boston Irreleventsia execs are up in arms over, essentially, the government's right to enter the fourth estate.

I say hogwash. This is not about government-controlled media. I remain perfectly free to choose what outlets I get my news from. A technique which works for me is to read articles from the Nation and the National Review on the same topic, e.g., "The Mideast Peace Process", and then create my view of what is true and what is spin. Not easy!

Instapundit's post continues with the NYT Baghdad bureau chief claiming that they didn't cover the December 10 anti-terror demonstrations because, in Dan Okrent's words, "The organizers of the demonstration failed to alert the Times in advance".

Unbelievable.

Millions and millions of blog lurkers, ordinary people like dentists, housewives, steelworkers, students, artists, convenience store clerks, from all corners of the globe knew weeks in advance about this most important demonstration, and the NYT didn't? I just have one word for that.

Irreleventsia.

Roger Simon's Paris Trip

Roger Simon writes about his Paris trip in this post. This is a quote:

"I was escorted to the notorious suburbs where I was told, for my own safety, not to speak English—I didn’t. I also didn’t take pictures, for obvious reasons."

I read a book years ago by Czeslaw Milosz called The Captive Mind. This google search will get you to several web pages about his book. He introduces the term ketman as a psychological complex which develops in those living under totalitarian rule.

In essence, it is the subtle loss of realization that the subject undergoes as he tries to conform to the state's expectations. At first, he realizes he is censoring his actions, but that realization fades over time. To use a rather silly modern example, do any of Star Trek's individual Borg units have any level of self-awareness? No, they have been assimilated.

The reason I bring this up and start with the Simon quote is this seemingly innocent sentence: "I also didn’t take pictures, for obvious reasons." Although I could be way off, it struck me quite strongly that this was a ketman moment. Not to sound dense, but I don't know what the obvious reasons are. Confiscation of camera? Putting friends' lives at risk? Interrogation? Immediate threats of violence? Deportation? Or perhaps that this behavior will be noted by the authorities. Don't get me wrong: Roger's description is creepy and his actions (or lack thereof) clearly justified. Yet, it's as if even thinking about takes pictures posed a danger; to think the "obvious reasons" (cripes! all out loud and everything, right in your mind!) is the risk. shhh!

The curious part to me (and the reason for my post) is not that this behavior was exhibited in a dangerous Parisian neighborhood, but that it was exhibited by an American. This is the crux of what I want to comment on: ketman now exists in American minds.

Let me give just one example. You do not talk back to police. You just do not talk back to police! Twenty years ago you could argue about a traffic ticket, youths could argue about curfew, demonstrators could argue about their rights of assembly. In the 21st century, the perception is now that the policeman's job is so dangerous, their need to get your immediate cooperation so important, that any evidence of anything other than kowtowed submission is viewed as a lethal threat (and dealt with accordingly).

Pretty big jump in twenty years. Why we have traveled this path so quickly is the subject of another (big) essay. It is not about the war on terror. Ketman has been creeping into American society for more than a generation.

I'll say this. We have legislated our way here. There are individual arenas of legislation, like the War on Drugs, which have been responsible for introducing ketman into American society, but the culprit is bigger. The culprit is zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is hell-spawn. I'll write about it soon.

Nopundit

The Irreleventsia #2

The Irreleventsia at work reporting on the U.N.

The Irreleventsia

Glenn Reynolds writes about the fall of the Big Media dictatorship here. I call Big Media The Irreleventsia. They are increasingly irrelevant in helping to shape my world view.

For months, maybe a year, as I've been a blog lurker, and now a blogger, I have been able to piece together my world view by reading Big Media articles against a backdrop of Blog Media articles, topic by topic. Iraq war coverage, Homeland Security mission creep, RAVE act abuses, gun control, judicial activism (and the related Congressional appointment behavior), Catholic Church scandals, even the blatant lobbying by Big Media themselves at the feet of the FCC, all are subject to a tremendous amount spin, lies of omission, and yes, outright lies.

Many very smart people have seen this phenomenon and commented intelligently. I have an observation I would like add that I have not specifically seen or heard.

Attenuation no longer exists. Attenuation means, essentially, signal degradation. All of analog media, especially their marketing models, are based in signal degradation theory. If broadcast TV wanted a presence in a market, they needed to invest millions of dollars in a station whose signal may degrade to fuzz outside of a hundred mile radius. Advertisers decided whether they wanted to enter any one of several hundred local markets (only speaking domestically).

A web page has literally no signal degradation. Cnn.com, instapundit.com, and nopundit.com "tune in" with zero degradation anywhere in the world, be it a Manhattan office or a Borneo internet cafe (I'll leave it as a given that I am talking only about the technical aspects of degradation, not the political aspects, where degradation reaches 100% at a filtering device). Here is the kicker that no one gets: the size of the "amplifiers" creating all web page signals are exactly the same size. Cnn.com does not have a bigger "amp" than instapundit.com, and instapundit.com does not have a bigger "amp" than nopundit.com. Figuratively and literally, the signal strengths are all absolutely equal. You do not need specialized ham radio equipment to "pull in" nopundit.com. Cnn.com, msnbc.com, time.com, thenation.com, etc., etc., etc., not one of them can "jam" nopundit.com's signal. It is equally easy to "pull in" every last one of the millions, perhaps billions, of web pages out there. All you need is one standardized receiver, the web browser.

This, of course, is a bad thing for Big Media. Whereas anything they ever reported or editorialized in the analog world may have been fluffed and spun, there was little hope of anyone having the ability to address Big Media's audience and rebut the story or editorial. This is no longer true. Every journalist and editor who speaks up can now have his or her words scrutinized by a worldwide audience. And it is happening. Happening on a scale, blog lurker by blog lurker, blogger by blogger, that Big Media is in complete denial about. Remember the story of the servant boy who asked the king for just one grain of rice today, then only two grains of rice tomorrow, then merely four grains of rice the next day, and so on, and that would be his humble reward for a task well done. Within a month, he was the wealthiest subject of the kingdom. Combine that with the notion of six degrees of separation, and you have a lot of people talking.

I believe the dramatic drop in young male TV viewing and the drop in musical CD sales could in part be a sign of people spending their "attention" dollars in front of a blog. For me, it was and is a matter of the interesting becoming fascinating. Tom Benson, owner of the New Orleans Saints, was justified in worrying aloud whether bringing the Charlotte Hornets to New Orleans (it did happen) would endanger bothfranchises due to the scarce resources of only so many free evenings and only so much disposable income. It hasn't yet, it probably won't, but it is a legitimate question.

The interesting conclusion that I come up with is that this does not have to be a big problem for Big Media. What they have get rid of are the distortions and the agendas, and return to reporting facts. It's so simple. One of the Big Media success stories is clearly Fox News. I am not saying they get it right all the time. They still show way too much non-news, like the Michael Jackson child molestation case, the Kobe Bryant rape case, the Laci Peterson murder case, etc. I'm not saying the aforementioned stories aren't news; in my world they each deserve about 10 seconds of my viewing time. Once. What Fox News does get right is simply adopting a mien which is not self-loathing. The reporters honestly like America (it seems to me anyway), and make a sincere effort to report her successes and not just her "quagmires". Of course, liking America and being her apologist are two completely different things. I certainly do want to know about America's failures. I just don't want to be told time and again that America is a failure.

Saddam Capture Embarrasses Gore

Wizbang asks for a little Indymedia satire:

With Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean just days ago, the Bush administration has chosen to finally "capture" Saddam Hussein. An anonymous high ranking administration official had this to say: "Look, George Bush will be president in 2004. We are setting our sights on 2008. That means destroying Gore. Fortunately, there's very little we need to do. Al does most of the heavy lifting for us."

Al Gore Is Not A Leader

Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean was opportunistic and calculated. And it was given just days before the capture of Saddam Hussein. With Dean, to paraphrase James Lileks, chumming the waters with red meat to the benefit only of his most ardent lefty supporters, Al's endorsement is now incredibly stupid as well. Dean's comment to take the "American label" off the conflict is just crap.

Al Gore has always impressed me as someone who functions on the level of trying to be the guy he thinks what others want him to be rather than making up his mind and sticking to a decision because he thinks it's right. He clearly picked that up from one of his mentors.

Leaders are not opportunistic in this manner. They hold their course, through both the popular and the unpopular moments of their decision. They do not betray loyalties. George W. Bush has held, and is holding, his course in foreign policy, all the while being pelted by both domestic and international vitriol. I really shudder to think where America would be had Al Gore made it into the White House. Ugh.

Feel, Think, See, and Know

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting observation.

Why do some people start their sentences with "I feel ..." rather than "I think ...". What about "I see ..." or even "I know ...". Listen to how people characterize where their observations are coming from.

Would you agree to this continuum:

Less certainty <-------> More certainty

"I Feel ..." "I Think ..." "I See ..." "I Know ..."

New Age Warning Alert! Glenn stops with "I think ..." which actually makes sense to me. Glenn is an analytical rational being and for him it's good when things make sense. OK, let's muck into the New Age crap.

When you preface your observations with "I feel ..." you are telling your listener that you are communicating from your second chakra, the seat of your emotions. Emotions can certainly be powerful, but they aren't necessarily trustworthy in conveying certainty and neutrality in the thing you wish to convey.

Prefacing your observations with "I think ..." is the sign of someone using their fifth chakra and analyzer. Highly trustworthy if you live in Cartesian three-space. Worthless utterances to the hyperbolic and elliptical universe beings out there. Get it? Different axiomatic beginnings lead to wildly divergent realities. When you "think" you understand the discomfort of an American in shame, does this translate to an understanding of a Japanese person in shame? The former may flip the bird and get into a fight, the latter may commit hari-kiri.

"I see ..." is uttered by those in their sixth chakras. Don't these words intimate a person with clarity? The sixth chakra is the seat of clairvoyance, or clear seeing. "I see we have a problem here" may be uttered by the school principal upon witnessing the tail end of a student fracas. Just by witnessing the state, or the energy if you will, of this confrontation is enough input. One might even see the principal with a twinkle in his eye and some (concealed) amusement.

The final sentence prefix, "I know ..." shows someone working from their seventh chakra. Knowingness is to have an instantaneous grasp of a situation or scene. A knowledge of what to do and what is happening. If you are Christian you may have heard the Benediction near the end of church. It goes something like, "May God forgive you; may God watch over you; and may God grant you peace, which passes beyond all understanding". This divine peace is a seventh chakra energy. It can be known, but it cannot be understood. You cannot start a sentence about peace with the words, "I think ..."

Making Sense of the Terrorists

There is an ad playing on N.O. radio for a car dealership which goes something like this (N.O. is a very Catholic city): Hi, I'm Billy Bob Boudreaux. Come on down to my dealership (chatter about great car deals). In this holiday season, I put my faith and love first in Almighty God himself, then in my family, and then my fellow man, and I hope and pray you do the same.

Nothing remarkable, and to most Christians (I assume), the order makes sense. God first. Live by your Christian compass first, even above that of family.

I just finished reading "The Last Don" by Mario Puzo. Domenico Clericuzio is the namesake of the book, and is a devout Catholic. Somewhere in the first half of the book, he's ruminating for the benefit of the reader, and the divine order for him is family first, God second, then the rest. Family first, before God.

This is exactly the rationalizing force that allows his sons, on the Don's order, to avenge the death of their brother Silvio and kill the rival Santadio clan. It is necessary, and it is not inconsistent with his belief in the divine order he lives in. God will understand and forgive him.

The title of my work is not, "Talking Sense with the Terrorists". It has been proven, to my satisfaction anyway, that this has been tried and is not possible. But there is a craving on my part to "get" the terrorists motivations. No, not motivations. There divine order. These terrorists acts are in the name of a great and compassionate religion. How do they rationalize their actions, to themselves, when their religion clearly condemns such acts?

Family first. Before God. God will understand and forgive them.