Tweaking Heroes

Brad Neely produces some funny shit.


The JFK video won't embed, but is almost as funny. I think both of these videos do what Howard Zinn or James Lowen can't by popularizing critique of American history as told in traditional ways. They take that critique out of the realm of he said/she said historical accounts (though these should not be discounted by any measure: Zinn and Lowen were a big influence on me) - and instead skewers dominant historical narratives as hype. The Neely approach regards historical-hype pure ideological speculation by taking the Washington-as-hero narrative to the extreme, and in doing so draws humor from its absurdity.

Quick Campaign Rhetoric Roundup

Hillary Clinton is not an exception: a recent book demonstrates how the 'groundbreaking' rhetoric of Clinton's campaign reinforces stereotypes that relegate women to the private sphere and make it harder for women to be elected.

A New York Times op-ed page back and forth about the politics of gender in the campaign. I tend to think that Steinem has the better point concerning how the coverage of Hillary shapes gender politics in general - and I'm a little tired of the 'call for debate' seen in Herbert's column.

Fear of Death and Elections - reminders of mortality create reactionary tendencies in voters, encouraging identification with the nation-state and traditional family values (whatever those are). Giuliani could still win if he does a better job of looking the part of a 9/11 hero- however, the better iconography goes to the firefighters who rightfully oppose his candidacy, which could spell doom for an already faltering campaign.

Warming up to new climate rhetoric

Two articles - "Warm Regards" and "This Time it's Personal"- recently stumbled upon at BookForum demonstrated some encouraging developments in discussing global warming and environmental change.

In particular, I like the suggestion to just start ignoring global warming skeptics. At some point, someone wins in a ‘debate’ like that over global warming. I think environmentalists should realize the general success of the discourse surrounding global climate change. To me, this means shifting the debate, rather than refusing any discussion. Say the debate has to be over something else – what to do, who has to act – and take the position of people who can affect global climate change. In particular, this means environmentalists have to stop obsessing over global warming skeptics. Don’t offer to debate them, don’t pretend like their opinion has any currency in politics, and just move on.

The problem with global warming now has to do with getting people to change the way they live. Generally, people don’t feel empowered to change global warming in a significant way.

My friend Craig described what he sees as a useful metaphor for encouraging people to take the steps to change. He used the metaphor of investment and risk in explicit economic terms – “would you really want to invest this much in a ecological system with diminishing returns and almost certain failure?” I find this interesting because it reverses the way that opponents to action to stop global warming frame their position. Generally, representatives of the warming-industries describe efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a too-risky investment. I think the viability of an investment metaphor now is the shift in presumption towards the assumption that change is occurring now. Global warming rhetoric has successfully established itself as to allow people to describe every irregular weather pattern as a result of warming. More people believe that change is happening already, and using a socially conservative/evangelical/millennial rhetoric, that everything was once better. In the same way that social conservatives trace the cause of social problems to the downfall of traditional family structures, environmentalists have connected all irregular weather patterns, disease, or drought to the ‘sin’ of global warming. It associates risk with change, and sees ongoing change as a descent into sin. The biggest difference between environmental rhetoric and the language of evangelical Christianity (thus far one of the most successful movements in America) is the possibility of redemption for our sin.

Global warming is too damn global and not personal enough. People affect their environments on a less than global scale, and environmentalist rhetoric needs to change to make the micro-scale of environmental change as significant as the macro scale. Environmentalists should attach a possessive or personalizing modifier to the word ‘environment’ whenever talking about environmental change – certain types of pollution or resource depletion affect people in the world in different ways. For instance, deforestation and energy use to manufacture paper cups impacts the world in a different way than the use of industrial chemicals and water to wash reusable cups. The impact of chemicals and water has more localized effects, while deforestation and energy more global. They don’t impact the environment as-such.

Specifying the way that consumption creates environmental change not only explains the real impacts more effectively, it can motivate change. Take the example above- talking about the specifics of the environmental change allows people to connect to the short term and small scale impacts of consumption. The effectiveness of more localized environmental discourses (NIMBY-style in particular) demonstrates how consumers respond to humanized ecological discourse. Environmentalists should detach this rhetoric from its defensive position and reattach it to a more global, humanitarian rhetoric. In the same way that human rights NGOs have been somewhat effective at encouraging people to make small donations in the name of saving people’s lives (“just one dollar can pay for malaria pills for xxx days…”), environmentalists should frame small scale choices as impacting people directly. This seems particularly important when considering the relatively marginal effects global warming will have on North America vs. the global south.

Fortunately for global warming activists, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are connected with a variety of more visible and unappealing pollutants. For example, coal fired electric plants expel a large portion of greenhouse gasses, but also leave a more visible, immediate impact on the environment surrounding their operation. Same with cars – smog is a global warming problem in that its creation is connected to the production of greenhouse gas. These immediate, visible pollutants help to personalize and ‘downscale’ to a manageable local level the perceived impacts of activities which contribute to global warming.

Something has got to give on warming: we're fast approaching key tipping points that will determine the sustainability of everyone's way of life.

Duncan

You Owe US - LAT Writer to Readers

The writer of this LA Times Business opinion piece believes that free news content on the internet will be the downfall of journalism, and that news companies should start charging for content online.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. The downfall of one form of news reporting (one that requires “an editorial staff of roughly 890”) does not mean the end of news, nor does the LA Times have a god given right to report the news how it wishes.

Mr. Lazarus confuses information with content. Information just exists on the internet - it cannot be monopolized, and can be accessed by anyone. Yes, there was a time where access to information about places afar was limited, and newspapers built themselves around providing access to that information – ‘news.’ Once that monopoly has been broken, content changes. In a world where information is everywhere, content becomes how that information is presented – both imagistically (why TV networks seem to be doing OK – they have high production values and unparalleled use of visuals), and ideologically (blogging is paradigmatic of one successful business model). Essentially, content on the internet means dealing with how information is used, not merely giving information – news outlets can specialize towards using interesting or effective writers, but cannot depend on limiting access to content to create revenue. Sites like BoingBoing or BuzzFlash! show how internet content involves sorting and describing information, not merely creating it. (A NYT article proves this point: sports news is the ultimate commodity – its only stats and scores at its core. In response, ESPN and other outlets have focused on hiring better commentary talent, creating a unique, vastly profitable ‘brand’ identity)

The job of the news reporter should be to respond to readers, not demand that readers pay for what is already free.

Shout Out

to Kyle, who just started a new blog: Inconspicuous Consumption. Much praise to him for being able to take an economic/social perspective that generally escapes me. Read it!

Radical change requires change: Hope for New Orleans

New Orleans remains a war-zone in the southeast of the US, now a one sided battle between the poor and HUD, a slow-motion sequel to the poor v. nature battle broadcast worldwide in 2005. But, as with all battles, a head on attack may not be the best course of action.

Some activists have responded to proposed HUD-led demolition by simply opposing demolition as bad in every case – they are of the opinion that the housing was just fine thank you, and that demolition should be halted. Despite the fact that HUD and the government of NO have consistently ignored the voices of some activists, mere opposition to demolition does disservice to the interests of people fighting for equitable housing.

Radicalism conflates itself with conservatism when it merely defends communities from change. Before cities gentrified they were segregated; defending racial boundaries against the contagion of gentrification reinforces socially conservative notions of natural community identity. What came before should shape what came before. In the instance of New Orleans, the legacy of a segregated city, where resident’s voices were ignored with equal violence as in today’s conflict, means that radical transformation should take advantage of the momentum generated by the storm, in the same way that the business community has taken advantage of the storm to generate their own vision of a new New Orleans. Essentially, anti-gentrification movements should focus on movement rather than stability, building stronger communities when economic or political change force themselves upon a community. Defense of the status quo not only makes little sense ideologically, it makes less sense strategically – the energies devoted to stopping demolition of segregated housing could be put towards recreating better communities through collectivization of childcare and food production in new communities, as steps towards a more self-determined future for the impoverished people of New Orleans.

Tetris, only different

A game I play: making sense of spaces

Today I was in the Atlanta airport, taking a break from reading my (rather good) book, , I took stock of the meaning of the place “Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport Terminal”

First, airports are about a particular kind of movement. People choose planes over cars or trains because they get you there faster: you get on a plane knowing you don’t like the time spent traveling, because you’re trying to make it go by as fast as possible. Everything in the airport echoes this type of movement.

Also, the airport only uses indirect lighting. Indirect lighting means that people cast no shadows, because there is no specific point from which light emits. This lends to the feeling that you’re not really in space, because you never have to account for the position of your body as it moves – space becomes undifferentiated before the eyes, we see no shadows, only reflections. The security cameras work the same way: indirect surveillance. Inevitably, they never point – I only saw the black semi-globes which suggest observation but never accuse or position anyone as a subject moving in or out of vision.

The space has specific visual cues which subtly differentiate uses. The center of the terminal has tile, the edges carpeting. The center tile creates a walking space that paces travelers with regular intervals, making movement across the space self-directed and measured. The carpeting gestures towards stillness – it makes less noise when walking and describes space in a more linear, less measured way. Carpet has a cultural echo as well, a less cold, more placed feel – few bedrooms have tiling, tile seems more suited for business, more task-oriented and functional than carpet.

Sitting space exists in abundance, but always lacks tables. People sit in chairs arranged next to each other on a bench style, but always separated by arm-rests or other divider. Traveling didn’t always look like this – benches dominated train station seating in particular. A level of exclusivity and feeling of personal independence separates train travel from air-travel, and the seating honors the power of individuals by granting them personal space that, strangely, probably encourages greater density of people actually seated than just benches. Tables cannot be found – they take up too much space and put people uncomfortably face to face in a space that draws in people from places so disparate that their imagined interests rarely coincide in a comfortable conversation. Something about air travel demands individuality, and the space of the waiting area replicates this logic.

Generally: a place not many really consider I suspect, which is perhaps my point. Air travel has an awkward distance I sometimes oppose, but thinking about it alleviates the problem somewhat. Onward to posts about more communication things!