http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:36:22 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/02/003622.php Uriel WittenbergContinued from Diagnosing the Culture."Ima have to steal that song. Good way to let them hoes know the deal. They be buggin""o werd, i like that pic u left on the page, shitz crack""I MISS U SEXXXXXXXXXXY....I LIKE THE PIC TOO....HOLLA BACK WHEN U GET THIS""Whats good supastar...tell the fan club to fall back while i make my way to the front..HA..just seeing you how you're doing..stay fly, and get me babe"[Notes from visitors to the "YoU hAvE nO cLuE WhAt Ur MiSSiNg!!!!!!" girl at MySpace.]We're in the middle of an epidemic, and the kids are watching 20,000 hours of commercials for junk food.The purveyors of the children's trash culture dominate. The responsible adults have bailed or been sidelined. The pimps continue to expand their reach."Unlike the computer, or a magazine or television, the phone is a piece of you," says an executive at Visa USA, explaining "a broad push by marketers to create a new generation of 'up close and personal' ads by delivering video, audio, banner displays and text clips" to cellphones.[1]A critic notes that "this is part of the creep of advertising into every nook and cranny of our lives."[2]In case the youngsters flick on the news, the pimps rule there too. As retired "Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel laments, most news programs "are designed to satisfy the perceived appetites of our audiences — most particularly, 18-to-34-year-old viewers, who are presumed to be partly brain-dead, though not so insensible as to be unmoved by the blandishments of sponsors."[3]In former times there were calm spaces now and then. Today the shit torrent is non-stop."They are avid blog consumers," says a New York Times profile of a couple of the "millennials" (people born between 1980 and 2000) whose attention advertisers vie for. "They read celebrity gossip blogs like Defamer and PopSugar and shopping and travel blogs like Luxist and DailyCandy. And they learn of new sites through the tide of instant messages flowing into the pockets and onto the laptop screens of millions of young adults every minute of the day."[4] (The article includes some muted concerns from a researcher worried about lack of individuality, groupthink, and dependence on immediate feedback.)It is as Charlotte Raven says, in her review of Is It Just Me or Is Everything Shit? "We're talking bad shit here." The book's authors, she adds, "are no longer susceptible to the culture's myths; they know that cool is a chimera."[5]Today's young are enmeshed in a system. They think they're skeptics, but pursue a false cool that's been manufactured to exploit them.Who might rescue the likes of Ms. "YoU hAvE nO cLuE WhAt Ur MiSSiNg!!!!!!"?One possibility presents itself. Imagine a new influence — from a source having no commercial agenda at all. Imagine a personal connection — non-casual, intimate — with someone who comes from a different, less polluted world. Someone, I mean, from an older generation.Incidentally, YoU-hAvE-nO-cLuE's pix indicate she's a comely lass. Whoops! We're face to face here with a social taboo, aren't we? Inter-generational romance. Suddenly everyone's hackles are up. Twenty thousand hours of commercials for junk food is barely remarked, but an older man with a young woman? That's "exploitation.""It's almost as though the system encourages people to get sick and then people get paid to treat them," says former Beth Israel president Dr. Matthew Fink, commenting on how health insurers tend to reject cheap preventive measures for diabetics — like a $150 visit to a podiatrist — while readily covering extreme interventions — like foot amputations, which typically cost over $30,000.[6]One can't lay out the blueprints for the conspiracy. But somehow, the system usually seems to take care of itself. The corporations are well fed; humans go hungry.Insane numbers of young people are on prescription medications. Can this be understood in any way other than as the system taking care of itself?In the sphere of communications, advertisers are fighting hard to get our attention. But some of us keep being distracted by other people. Is it an accident that we are being programmed, more and more, to mistrust and avoid that alternate information source?There's a beautiful moment in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 when Moore approaches a group of car mechanics, working together at a small-town garage, and interviews them about the government's terror warnings urging people to be vigilant. "Never know what's gonna happen," one says. All of them, it's clear, consider this statement sound."Never trust nobody you don't know," another offers. The same fellow then tosses out an afterthought, which no one blinks at: "And even if you do know them, you really can't trust them then."A similar siege mentality is operative here in Toronto. An exchange with a stranger who contacted me by email me last month is illustrative. She sent me this message:I read a few of the articles you wrote on your website, and I must say, I was impressed.Like an expert surgeon, you dissect and examine every aspect of an issue, and then dissect what you've just dissected! Happy New Year!LeahThat was nice; but perhaps meaningless. So I probed:"Well, thanks. Which piece did you like?"She listed several specific items on my site and added, "Very interesting stuff." However, she opined, since I lived in Toronto (she too lived in the Toronto area), I should also write about Canada. I felt differently; she persisted; so I wrote: "Well, give me your # and I'll try to explain ......."Her reply said:Hi Uriel,Since I don't know you well enough, would you be comfortable giving me your number instead?Take care,LeahI wrote back: "If giving out your # when the author of 'very interesting stuff' volunteers to call seems too dangerous, maybe you're setting too high a premium on safety in your life.""That may be," she answered, "but as I'm sure you're aware, we do live in un-safe times, and I have other people to consider who's safety I also set a high premium on." However, she went on, "I am certainly happy to call you sometime if you would still like to talk.""Nope," I emailed back. "The price is your #."I never heard back.So, returning to Ms. "YoU hAvE nO cLuE WhAt Ur MiSSiNg!!!!!!"Her mind is filled with corporate prescriptions. What is most admirable in life is to be a winner — which always means something involving consumption: a thrilled absorption in transporting music; a statement of unique individuality via the display of brand-name watches, handbags, shoes; the efficient dispatching of one's personal banking at a laptop computer (why do the ads always show the computer user sitting cross-legged on the floor?? That would just cripple me). Plus, everything has to be extreme — soft drinks, sex, sports, travel destinations. There's extremely little real human communication, however. What's stunning about YoU-hAvE-nO-cLuE's webpage at MySpace is what an extreme, gargantuan waste of time it all is. "Just stoping bye to show u some love well ihope ur newyear was the shit and all ur wish come tru iight then hit me bacc," reads a typical visitor's note. There's simply no particle of worth there.YoU-hAvE-nO-cLuE is missing a basic insight about what it means to be human. It involves the brain; ideas; exchanging thoughts with others; weighing and comparing aesthetic viewpoints; and, at least once in a while, pursuing truth, insight and enlightenment. I could contact YoU-hAvE-nO-cLuE; introduce her to new ideas; expand her horizons; show her how to better understand her world and live a more interesting life. Were she receptive, it's not unimaginable that we might develop a beautiful rapport of some kind. Ah, except that in her webpage's "Who I'd like to meet" section, she has:I'LL TELL U WHO I WOULDN'T LIKE TO MEET...OLD PREVERTED WHITE DUDES!!!SO DONT EVEN TRY IT!!I'M NOT GNA RESPOND TO UR MSGS!!!AND DUDES WITHOUT PICS,DNT EVEN BOTHER!!!UGGGHHHH!! Lest we forget, however, she does "love people in general." Really, Ms. YoU-hAvE-nO-cLuE seems to have no conception whatever of the world beyond her mean and narrow horizons. She cannot imagine that I might have something valid, something interesting and worthwhile, to offer her. In fact, one might well say ... she has no clue what she's missing.But the attitude of this young woman is absolutely standard among her generation — like a manufacturer's mark identically stamped on each widget along an endless assembly line. It's ignorant prejudice, certainly, since numbers of "old preverted white dudes" have better values than most of her peers; better intentions where partners' welfare is concerned; better hygiene; better physical fitness; better performance; more wholesome sexual inclinations (as Naomi Wolf has written, YoU-hAvE-nO-cLuE's generation is "being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training — and this is having a huge effect on how they interact"[7]); as well as, obviously, better brains.But as always, prejudice is impervious to reality. In a reversal of biology and word sense, it's called "perverted" when an older man evinces interest in a younger woman. The standard term is "creepy"; the standard denunciation the phrase, "He could be your dad" (laying bare the self-evident wrongness of it all). These formulations appear in a recent piece from the Sunday Times "Style Desk" that briefly considers such an affair, before properly concluding it'd be a bad idea.[8]If even the liberal New York Times perpetuates this conventional bigotry, Ms. YoU-hAvE-nO-cLuE can hardly be expected to surpass it. She's worse off; I'm worse off; but the corporations' transmissions suffer less interference. And as we acquiesce, the everything-is-shit quality of modern life (for humans) is maintained.Notes(Use your browser's BACK function to return to endnote reference above.)[1] "Marketers Interested in Small Screen," New York Times, January 16, 2006[2] "Marketers Interested in Small Screen," New York Times, January 16, 2006[3] Edited quotation from "And Now, a Word for Our Demographic, by Ted Koppel, New York Times, January 29, 2006.[4] "A Generation Serves Notice: It's a Moving Target," New York Times, January 22, 2006.[5] Edited portion of quotation in Diagnosing the Culture.[6] "In the Treatment of Diabetes, Success Often Does Not Pay," New York Times, January 11, 2006.[7] The Porn Myth, by Naomi Wolf, New York Magazine, October 20, 2003.[8] "So He Looked Like Dad. It Was Just Dinner, Right?" by Abby Sher, New York Times, January 22, 2006. Culture43065@blogcritics.org Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:36:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/17/223357.php Uriel WittenbergThere's a book that's been much on my thoughts lately. Apparently a big hit in England, it's an incisive and penetrating examination of contemporary reality which, in my considered opinion, captures the essence of what's happening and the way things are. I haven't literally "read" the book, in the sense of cracking the thing open. But the title sings out to me, telling me that the authors are fellow spirits, sending my own spirit soaring: Is It Just Me or Is Everything Shit?No! No it's not just you! Some books, I obviously realize, require a more assiduous expenditure of time and energy. With Dostoyevsky, say, you'd be an idiot to stop at The Idiot's title and consider the job done. But Dostoyevsky and his ilk, I think, are a bit out of fashion. Nobody has the damn time. Weighty books can still be given as gifts, but that implies either tactlessness or malice (unless the source of the largesse is some oldster from a bygone era, in which case it's probably an expression of reproof).The friendly gesture is to give a book that can be fully appreciated at the moment the gift wrapping is cast aside, at the banquet table, as everyone is laughing and drinking and enjoying the great things life has to offer. That's what Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University, belatedly cottoned onto some time ago. After spending most of his career quietly churning out traditional uninspiring philosophy, he made a splash with the title On Bullshit. He was even conscientious enough to offer a few stylishly crafted opening sentences for Chapter 1 --One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.-- before subsiding into the conventional kind of philosophical turgidity --I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of bullshit.... [etc. etc. etc.]-- which he no doubt keeps up with all the way to the end of the book.A book with a title like On Bullshit is one you can confidently use to express warmth and affection to someone close (assuming they're open to books at all). Another recent title that's powerfully evocative for me personally is The Pedant's Revolt: Why Most Things You Think Are Right Are Wrong. Wonderful! Sublime! My feelings exactly!Of Is It Just Me or Is Everything Shit?, one reviewer writes that the authors, Steve Lowe and Alan McArthur,...are maddened, not just annoyed but literally maddened, by the effluvia of consumer society. The sardonic tone of the entries reflects a sense that this stuff is not just irritating but degrading to our humanity. We're talking bad shit here, dredged from a place beyond the reach of satire. The book is an appraisal of the culture by people who are no longer susceptible to the myths that stop us from seeing things as they really are. They know that cool is a chimera, and disbelieve the scale of value on which success is currently judged. So much of this craziest period in the development of consumer capitalism looks so obviously mad, you expect others to see it. From the looks on their faces, you can tell they think you're the mad one. The ebbing away of political consciousness has left writers such as Lowe and McArthur looking like olde worlde eccentrics for disapproving of the pursuit of wealth and people's willing submission to the insane work patterns that are now the norm. [Edited excerpt, Review by Charlotte Raven, New Statesman, January 9, 2006.]And people are embracing a lot more than just the pursuit of wealth and insane work patterns. I wrote in Deceit Culture #5 that "the liars' accomplishments are wondrous.... People are making themselves sick, without coercion."And just a week later, the New York Times launches a brilliant series on the little-appreciated and fast-growing epidemic of diabetes. More than one in eight adult New Yorkers now have the disease, and "one in three children born in the U.S. five years ago are expected to become diabetic in their lifetimes."You'd never guess some of the causes cited in the article: "a food supply spiked with sugars and fats, and a culture that promotes overeating and discourages exercise."Everything is shit. It's the precise diagnosis for our culture. And in the diabetes epidemic, we have our perfect metaphor. Oh, here in today's Times is a fresh form of abhorrent evil I hadn't heard of before, being perpetrated by our society's powers that be:One way to cut down on the number of inmates who end up right back in prison shortly after being released is to make sure that they preserve their ties with their families, especially with spouses and children, while they are serving time. But keeping in touch is often impossible for inmates and their families because of state prison systems that earn huge profits from inmates' phone calls by forcing the family members who receive those collect calls to pay usurious rates. As a result, a family must often choose between talking to a loved one in prison and putting food on the table.A bill introduced in Congress by Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Illinois, would help end this shameful practice by requiring the Federal Communications Commission to set fair rates for interstate phone calls made from prison. The bill will surely face fierce opposition from the telecommunications lobby and from state prison systems that have grown accustomed to gouging the poorest families in the country to subsidize some prison-related activities. State prison systems typically use telephone setups that permit only collect calls, made through providers that keep a monopoly on prison telephone service by paying the states a "commission" - essentially a legal kickback. The kickback does not materialize out of thin air. The people who receive the phone calls often pay as much as six times the going rate. Not surprisingly, the costs discourage inmates from keeping in touch with spouses and children who may live hundreds of miles away and find it difficult or impossible to visit. [Edited excerpt, "Keeping in Touch With a Parent in Prison" (Editorial), New York Times, January 14, 2006.]Returning to the diabetes epidemic, the commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, says:Twenty years from now people will look back and say: "What were they thinking? They're in the middle of an epidemic and kids are watching 20,000 hours of commercials for junk food."Disaster is nigh, warns the article:Within a generation or so, doctors fear, a huge wave of new cases could overwhelm the public health system and engulf growing numbers of the young, creating a city where hospitals are swamped by the disease's handiwork, schools scramble for resources as they accommodate diabetic children, and the work force abounds with the blind and the halt."Either we fall apart or we stop this," said Frieden.Yet he and other public health officials acknowledge that their ability to slow the disease is limited. Getting millions of people to change their behavior, he said, will require some kind of national crusade.A "national crusade." Why's that needed? Because radical change is imperative.At the same time, radical change is not democratically feasible. So there is no serious discussion of radical change going on in our society. Do you happen to have a moment to reflect on infeasible (but imperative) reforms? Here are two:Ferocious controls on media entertainment and advertising to save the culture and curb the pollution of young minds, together with programs to aggressively promote wholesome activities.A system of independent but government-funded public policy research institutes employing 10% of the workforce in research positions, focussing on current policy issues. This would merely acknowledge the reality that: 1) an assumed precondition for successful democracy is citizen scrutiny of government; 2) that precondition is not being satisfied under our status quo. The Times reports:Type 2 diabetes grows hand in glove with obesity, and America is becoming fatter. To fix Type 2 diabetes, experts agree, you have to fix people. Change lifestyles. Adjust thinking. But when office visits typically last as little as eight minutes, doctors say there is no time to retool patients so they can adopt an entirely new approach to food and life."Think of it this way," said Dr. Berger. "An average person spends less than .03 percent of their entire life meeting with a clinician. The rest of the time they're being bombarded with all the societal influences that make this disease so common."As a result, primary care doctors often have a fatalistic attitude about controlling the disease.Free speech, the First Amendment -- they're great. But insufficient in the modern world.Times columnist David Brooks takes a look at how today's twenty-somethings are socializing:"Dude, we totally need to hang out. ... Erin, you're a [great] waitress and friend. We definitely need to hang out sometime. ... You rock my world. It was awesome seeing you. ... Where did you go!!! I haven't seen you in a long time and I NEED to see you!!! Cause I love you!!! ... Happy New Year my sexy friend. I love you sooo much!"Go to MySpace.com (20 million visitors a month) or Facebook or Xanga or any of the other online sites where people leave messages on the home pages of their friends and you'll see these great waves of praise and encouragement. People visit their friends' pages and drop lovebombs. There's scarcely a critical word about anyone or anything in the whole social network. It's just fervent declarations of friendship, vows to get together soon and memories of great times gone by.These sites are commonly used by people in their early to mid-20's. They bond online with an almost desperate enthusiasm. [...]On most Web pages, there's a chance to list your favorite TV shows and books. And while the TV lists are long ("The OC," "Desperate Housewives," "Nip/Tuck," etc.) many of the book lists will make publishers suicidal: "Books! Ha! Me! What a joke! ... I think reading's ridiculous. ... I don't finish books very often but I'm attempting 'Smart Women Finish Rich.'... This is what I have to say about books (next to an icon of Bart Simpson's rear end)."[Edited excerpt, "Bondage and Bonding Online," New York Times, January 8, 2006.]I sampled a few pages on MySpace. One 29-year-old girl here in Canada, whose page indicated she'd last logged in the same day, offers as her main blurb: "YoU hAvE nO cLuE WhAt Ur MiSSiNg!!!!!!" It doesn't seem unfair to interpret that in sexual terms, since it's next to a photo showing a frontal view of just her midsection, with her hand inside her underwear.Clearly, this is an emphatic declaration that she's quite, quite hot. Additionally, she's informing all of us men that we're highly deprived. Not only don't we have her; we can't even imagine her. As a man, my choice is clear: I can remain "clueless"; or I can make a bid for extreme, undreamt of sexual ecstasy by petitioning her — a process one would probably initiate by clicking the link on her page that would add her to my list of "friends." (Or add me to her list of friends? Is asymmetry recognized? I haven't thoroughly figured out MySpace.)She currently has 115 "friends." (The sample shown suggests they're mostly strapping males. You'll understand if I don't offer identifying links here. I'm proceeding on the assumption they're not urielw.com regulars.) Friends post notes, and a frequently recurring phrase on this and other pages is "Thanks for the add." An "add," apparently, is a declaration of friendship made via a mouse-click on the "Add to Friends" link. One pouting, aggrieved-looking lad with a heavy gold chain has:12/20/2005 10:15:00 AM sup mami just leaving you with a not to see how your holidays are going so far. Get at me A.S.A.P. "Get at me." He ain't gonna humble himself. No way.Some female friends appear too:12/19/2005 11:46:00 AM I MISS YOU TOO MAMA! man we need to link up asap i might taake my ass to canada! anyway my holidays are ggoin pretty good.im a lil sad i been tryin to get back with my x but that nigga is playin hes talkin about he loves me and only wants to be with me but then he dont wanna get back together. hes about to FUCK UP! lolanyway aww im happy ya'll are doin good. and damn i aint doin shit for new years :( The nigga is "playin" -- being insincere, apparently. But our featured lady, in a longer self-profile elsewhere on the page which is more in-depth than "YoU hAvE nO cLuE WhAt Ur MiSSiNg!!!!!!", announces that "Just playin" is what she does too. Does that disappoint the friend? Or is consistency not a big deal?A suspicious cast of mind might sniff a hint of dejection in the friend's note. She openly confesses she's "a lil sad." But she quickly perks up on recollecting that her errant boyfriend will be the bigger victim -- "hes about to FUCK UP!" — and the thought of his misery stimulates rich mirth: "lol" (i.e., "laughing out loud," while sitting in solitude at the computer).Getting back to our feature attraction, her page's "About me" section trumpets these thoughts on herself:About me??? Hell yeah!It's all bout me!!! Just playin. There is only one me in this world,nothin like me or even remotely close. I've always been different in every way and that's why people love me and never ever forget me. I like to have fun. I'm a free spirit and have no fear so i will try or do almost anything (don't get it twisted though,I said almost anything)I love to sky dive(in my dreams)No really though,I'd love to try it.I love playin pool cause I'm pretty damn good at it! I like to travel and do so quite often,to the states mostly.I love takin bubble baths with candles and music the whole 9 yards.I LOVE to cook and bake,always have since I was a little girl. I love fashion design,I love sewing.I love music,R&B,Hip Hop,OLD SKOOL, and my first love Dancehall Reggae. I like to party, drink and dance,smoke herb for medicinal purposes(yeah right)and love people in general,and I'm extremely loyal to my family and friends.My friends call me spill,lol!I'm a clutz!! I have a Ball Python snake named Pricilla 3ft long,and I used to have 2 turantulas,you see I just like to be different.I'm one of those people that never change,you see me 10 years from now and you'll say WOW that girl never changes,she still a crazy nut!!! I'm just real silly and like to have fun (or make fun) I come from a family of real silly people.I laugh alot and smile and love to make others laugh and smile. I like to play practical jokes on people,i shoulda been on the show 'girls behaving badly'(that was originally my idea) Anyway,I'm a talker not a writer.Anything else you wanna know,just hit me up. "Only one me in this world,nothin like me or even remotely close"? What's most remarkable about MySpace's self-descriptions is how little individuality is discernible. The poses seem part desperate conformity, part striving imitation of some media celebrity's public persona.And what's with the pets? She LOVES cooking, fashion design, sewing, music, partying, people in general ... but her pets of choice are python snakes and tarantula spiders?!But this kind of thing too seems to be entirely ordinary these days. The teen daughter of a friend of mine shows a fondness for knives. (I've expressed curiosity, but she can't explain why.) Plus of course it's fashionable to staple metal into your face.Tarantula Lady is 29 years old. Does she vote? Imagine having her on the jury if you're charged with a crime. You have to fix people. Change lifestyles. Adjust thinking. And stop the bombardment by baleful influences.The question that will be asked of diabetes applies to our entire culture: "What were they thinking? They're in the middle of an epidemic and kids are watching 20,000 hours of commercials for junk food." New York Times quotations above regarding diabetes are edited excerpts from two articles in the Times' series on diabetes: "Diabetes and Its Awful Toll Quietly Emerge as a Crisis," January 9, 2006; and "In the Treatment of Diabetes, Success Often Does Not Pay," January 11, 2006. Culture42406@blogcritics.org Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:33:57 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/30/112706.php Uriel WittenbergCheck out Jonathan D. Glater's Nov. 29 New York Times piece: "Reading X-Rays in Asbestos Suits Enriched Doctor." Most readers of this front-page story would conclude that its subject, Dr. Ray A. Harron, 73, a graduate of New York Medical College who practiced as a radiologist for more than 30 years, is a crook. Here is an edited excerpt from the article; its indications are damning:About a decade ago, Dr. Harron gradually stopped seeing patients and instead adopted what turned out to be a much more lucrative practice: reading X-rays full time. He reviewed as many as 150 X-rays a day, or one every few minutes, and produced medical reports for $125 each. Some of his reports supported claims by more than 75,000 people seeking compensation for lung injury caused by inhalation of asbestos. For his work, he probably earned millions of dollars over the years.In the eyes of defense lawyers fighting some of those claims, Dr. Harron was not a professional rendering an independent opinion, but a vital cog in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit machine. They contend that Dr. Harron's X-ray evaluations are unreliable at best, fraudulent at worst.The defense lawyers are not the only ones who have questioned Dr. Harron's work. This summer, a federal judge found that Dr. Harron "failed to write, read, or personally sign" reports supporting 6,350 claims by people saying they had inhaled silica, another potentially dangerous material.Critics of plaintiffs' lawyers have portrayed the sweeping product liability litigation over asbestos and silica as an effort to game a system set up to compensate injured workers. Defense lawyers have criticized expert witnesses and diagnosing doctors in the past for supporting lawsuits that the lawyers say lack merit.While Dr. Harron rarely appeared in court, his medical reports were clearly crucial to tens of thousands of claims. Court documents in the asbestos and silica litigation show the critical role that can be played by doctors, who are less often maligned than the lawyers who hire them.Litigation involving asbestos, and more recently, silica, has grown into a huge business. Over the last 30 years, more than 700,000 claims have been filed involving inhalation of asbestos, a fire-retardant material that can cause a particularly pernicious form of lung cancer, and more than $70 billion has been spent on asbestos litigation - $49 billion as compensation, according to the Rand Corporation.OK, I'm ready to toss Harron into the slammer.Besides selling allegedly phony medical advice for big bucks, Harron seems to be more or less a murderer:A 1999 court decision gives some idea of the nature of Dr. Harron's work. He was sued by the widow of Raymond Adams, whose lung cancer Dr. Harron had spotted on an X-ray. Dr. Harron, who had never met the man, drew the possible cancer to the attention of the law firm that had sent him the X-ray as part of its search for potential plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits. The firm never passed on the information to Mr. Adams, according to court documents, and his cancer went undiagnosed for about a year. He eventually died.So it's fair to say jail is too good for Harron. He should be fried.Oh, there's just one thing:Dr. Harron has not been formally accused of wrongdoing."Formally." That's just an annoying legal quibble, isn't it? The system of safeguarding criminals' "rights" run amok. There isn't really any reason to delay sending him to the chair, is there?It's just that... Well, the victims here are generally corporations. They are the defendants that apparently have been swindled out of $49 billion, thanks to allegedly phony reports by Harron and his ilk. One has to wonder — why did they just roll over and take their lumps for so many years?Anyone can understand how you go about buying false testimony: You go on a drunken thrill-ride and knock down a lamppost. A cop appears, and you're given a breathalyzer test. The test shows you're zonked. So you pay the cop to testify that the test showed you hadn't touched a drop. But how do you do that if the prosecution has an exact, authentic record of the result of that same breathalyzer test?That is the analogy here. Harron's purportedly false testimony concerned X-rays to which opposing legal counsel presumably had full access. Those opponents had to have their own medical experts scrutinizing the same X-rays that were the subject of Harron's testimony. How could Harron's diagnoses be "manufactured for money," as stated by a judge's finding that the article quotes? How do you lie, with great frequency, for years and years, about things that are on record?This question has not occurred to the New York Times.There is only one way to make sense of this. It's weird, but the Times reader has to posit that analyzing X-rays is so much an inexact science that a radiologist can tell bald lies, over and over, with impunity — and if anyone calls him a liar, the following response is guaranteed to work: "Hey. Inexact science. Back off."Where is radiology school? This is really too easy. A radiology certificate seems to be a license to print money. Small wonder one of the lawyers quoted in the article remarks, "There are a lot of other Ray Harrons out there."What about the judge's finding that Harron " 'failed to write, read, or personally sign' reports supporting 6,350 claims by people saying they had inhaled silica?"This is amplified later in the article. The judge "wrote that the diagnoses relied on X-rays and on medical histories taken by screening companies or law firms, not on physical examinations, as the reports under his name claimed."What's going on here? Does a radiology certificate give you total freedom to perpetrate fraud on the courts? Is a radiologist's signature inexact science too?How is it explicable that "Dr. Harron has not been formally accused of wrongdoing"?!Silence from the Times.The article mentioned that doctors like Harron in the court process "are less often maligned than the lawyers who hire them." Translation: While a lawyer won't shock anyone by saying opposing counsel are a bunch of lying bastards (which is already the default operating assumption about lawyers), one is constrained to treat the opposition's medical experts more tenderly. Still, though. If you were a corporate lawyer, wouldn't you take a hard look at the enemy's medical experts? Track them in a database? Analyze their testimony? Challenge suspicious patterns or inconsistencies? Before accumulating $49 billion in losses?Might you not have discovered and discreetly mentioned to the court that your worthy opponent's expert witness analyzes 150 X-rays daily at $125 each? Wouldn't you let the judge know that his X-ray reports have supported 75,000 other claims? And wouldn't you share with the judge your fear that — although you have enormous respect for the medical profession and the extremely important work they do, blah blah blah — it's conceivable that this particular expert's judgment is not rigorously neutral?And if you didn't — wouldn't you be ripe for a malpractice suit yourself?But none of these questions ever struck the Times.And why isn't even one of these victimized corporations named? Who paid for this article?Litigation lawyers support the Democrats. Are the Republicans behind this?Whether or not Harron himself is a crook, are there really a lot of crooked doctors supporting phony court claims? Is this article conveying a balanced view of asbestos litigation?As long as we're reconsidering our position, let's re-think that murder of Harron's. He spotted cancer on an X-ray; he never told the patient; the cancer went undiagnosed for a year; it then killed the patient, who no doubt would otherwise have lived many more years. The old lady naturally sued Harron. Yeah, this "gives some idea of the nature of Dr. Harron's work," the article says.But as the piece also reports, the suit against Harron failed because "[t]he court found that Dr. Harron was not Mr. Adams's doctor and so did not have a duty to make sure he sought medical treatment."Harron was paid by a law firm to analyze the man's X-rays, among others. He detected and reported the cancer to the firm. Harron had never met the man. Should he have independently sought to contact him? Would it have been unreasonable of him to assume the law firm would do so? Did he violate medical ethics in any way?The Times is silent on these questions. But if Harron is totally free from guilt in this matter, then his reputation has been unjustly harmed through the Times's powerful influence.Toward the end of the article, a further blow is delivered against Harron, as the Times tells of a judge's "disturbing" finding:Dr. Harron's credibility suffered a serious blow in the course of a legal proceeding in Corpus Christi, TX, before Judge Janis Graham Jack of Federal District Court.Dr. Harron testified about his diagnoses of silicosis, a lung disease caused by exposure to silica. The doctor's diagnoses supported thousands of claims filed against companies that manufactured or used silica.Judge Jack wrote: "When Dr. Harron first examined 1,807 plaintiffs' X-rays for asbestos litigation, he found them all to be consistent only with asbestosis and not with silicosis." But after re-examining X-rays of the same 1,807 people "for silica litigation, Dr. Harron found evidence of silicosis in every case."It is possible for someone to have developed both diseases as a result of working in a place where both silica and asbestos were used. But both illnesses generally take years to manifest themselves, so it is unlikely that someone could develop signs of silicosis that were not discernible on an X-ray just a few years earlier. The diagnoses "were manufactured for money," the judge wrote last summer in an opinion that sent some claims back to state courts and imposed sanctions on one of the plaintiff firms. "The record does not reveal who originally devised this scheme, but it is clear that the lawyers, doctors and screening companies were all willing participants," Judge Jack wrote.When defense lawyers began to ask Dr. Harron about his findings in February at a hearing that led to Judge Jack's opinion, he asked for a lawyer."If you're accusing me of fabricating these things, I think that's a serious charge," Dr. Harron said.Surely that clinches it. Doesn't it?Actually, no. Thank goodness we don't have mob rule, that guilt isn't decided by the New York Times, that people like Harron do have those "rights," and that they can get a full hearing, if charged, and respond to allegations. (So long, of course, as they're not "enemy combatants.")Harron may well be guilty here, but the above passage is thoroughly ambiguous. As far as the Times reader knows, it is consistent with, for example, this scenario: A law firm had Harron analyze 75,000 X-rays for asbestosis. Obviously, for efficiency, one tends to standardize the procedure when faced with such a massive task. Harron's task was, for each X-ray, to produce either a positive or negative finding of asbestosis and nothing else. That was his job. He was working for a law firm conducting a class action lawsuit for asbestosis. In focusing only on asbestosis for efficiency's sake, he was not in breach of any legal or ethical codes. He came to a positive finding for, let us say, 15,000 of the 75,000 X-rays. A few years later, a case for silicosis emerged, and the same firm had Harron examine another batch of 75,000 X-rays, but for silicosis this time. He found 10,000 positives for silicosis. Among the 10,000 people found to have silicosis, there were 1,807 who'd also been among the 15,000 previously found to have asbestosis. In this scenario, Harron is guilty of nothing. Politics40293@blogcritics.org Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:27:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/23/213242.php Uriel WittenbergI was at a little social gathering, speaking with a young man who's an undergraduate student in math. He said he planned to pursue the subject at the graduate level.That's fine, I told him. However, you should be aware that it will not be possible to communicate with normal people any more. In any serious discussion of ideas, you will be tempted regularly to yell, "Shut up. Shut up. Just shut up! Shut up and listen to me!"The young man gave me a nervous smile and walked off, without comment, to sit quietly beside his grandmother and some other elderly ladies.Of course, what's special about math education is that it provides a concentrated form of training in logical reasoning. And I realize it's not logical to yell "Shut up and listen !" at people. (They won't comply.) But the temptation is there. Because people are just so damned illogical. It's exasperating. They don't make the most instinctive, totally elementary connections. And frankly my dears, they really don't want to.Illogic perpetuates itself. Although it's a root cause of the biggest problems in the world, the lack of logical thinking -- basic reasoning -- makes people ignore root causes. Instead, do-gooders devote their energies to battling its ubiquitous effects: the urgent need to exit from a war that allows no exit, political and corporate corruption, the disappearance of old-age pensions, the overmedication of children, poor educational results, obesity, widening depravity and malaise.I don't think it's even occurred to many people that there's any connection between logic -- something to do with mental stuff -- and anything that happens in the concrete, physical world. Sixty years ago, the connection was dramatized when arcane hieroglyphics written on a blackboard by a nutty old guy with wild white hair produced an atomic explosion. But few such demonstrations have gotten much publicity recently. Of course, technology marches on, but that's seen as something coming out of black-box corporate R&D departments, not the live thinking processes of individuals.And certainly it occurs to few of us that logic has anything to do with politics, or with the way society is or should be run.The result is: an urgent need to exit from a war that allows no exit, political and corporate corruption, the disappearance of old-age pensions, the over-medication of children, poor educational results, obesity, widening depravity and malaise.Were there a little logic, these problems would be nonexistent in America. Everyone would be far better off materially and spiritually. There would be opportunity for all. No child would be left behind. And the nation would be respected.The situation today, of course, is the opposite. The US is the object of near-universal contempt and loathing. More remarkably, it's helping bring the ideal of democracy itself, which it represents, into disrepute. How impressive is this democracy thing when the elite can steer the nation whichever way it wants -- to the point of initiating a war in defiance of the public interest? But the war is only the most flagrant item in an endless panorama of violations of the public interest. Meanwhile, the great non-democracy, China, continues its march to world dominance, while exploiting its intrinsic advantages in image management.Here I am, speaking of "public interest" as if that were generally understood to be the very point of democratic government. It's not, so addled by illogic are we. The following almost laughable piece of stupidity nicely illustrates the self-obsessed, local, gimme, gimme conception many voters have of democracy:To the Editor:Re ''Tax Panel Says Popular Breaks Should Be Cut'' (front page, Oct. 12):I invested a great deal of money to buy an apartment in Brooklyn last year. One of the principal reasons I was able to do so was that my mortgage interest deduction made the purchase more comparable to my previous cost for renting.If any elected official tries to weaken the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction, he should be prepared to reap the whirlwind at the ballot box from furious voters.Max RobinsBrooklyn[Letter to editor published in New York Times, October 19, 2005.]Were there so much as a scintilla of logic in the way our government was expected to work, everything would be so radically different it would be unrecognizable. Were we a logical citizenry, living in that different world, this one would make us laugh and laugh -- if someone could actually conjure it up for reflection. Our New York Times would be a madcap comedian's febrile inventions. This item, for example:Penlac Nail Lacquer rarely cures the nail fungus it is designed to treat, yet it costs $130 a thimbleful. As a result, more than 20 state Medicaid programs and dozens of private health insurers require doctors to get advance permission to prescribe it. But not New York Medicaid, which spent $12 million on the drug last year, more than eight times as much as any other state.New York spent $74 million last year, far more than any other state, on Nexium, the "new Purple Pill" for heartburn. The drug is virtually identical to Prilosec, available at one-sixth the cost over the counter, and so at least 20 state Medicaid programs and many private health insurance companies severely restrict its use. Only now, two years after other states began imposing limits on Nexium, has New York moved to restrict it.And those amounts are pocket change compared with the $348 million or more that New York could have saved if it were as aggressive as a state like Michigan in setting the prices it pays pharmacies for the drugs they dispense. New York frequently pays many times more for drugs than Medicaid programs in other states.For years, New York Medicaid, the state's health care program for the poor, has been an open-air bazaar for drug companies and their wares. Prescriptions that are severely restricted in many states are often dispensed freely here, and at higher prices, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.As a result, the state program spends more on drugs for each Medicaid recipient than any other state but West Virginia, according to federal statistics. While other states have tried to fight soaring drug costs, New York lacks even the most basic controls that dozens of other states and private health insurers have used."They call it the gold card," said William Scheer, president of the New York City Pharmacists Society and a pharmacy owner, referring to the state health care program. "You get anything you want with it."[Excerpted from "Drug Costs Run Free Under New York Medicaid," New York Times, November 23, 2005.]The article goes on to note -- who would have guessed it? -- the "years of industry lobbying in Albany":The nation's pharmaceutical companies have spent millions persuading state lawmakers not to adopt the kinds of controls that other states began instituting more than a decade ago. And pharmacist organizations have pressured the state program to pay pharmacies more than most other states for the drugs themselves.In a logical world, any politician involved in this theft of public money -- and yes, theft in that wildly different world would be called "theft" -- any politician involved would be finished -- utterly terminated -- in politics.It wouldn't matter that he's done a lot of good otherwise; that he played a small role; that everyone was doing it. People would understand there's a principle involved: Don't steal from the people. It's black and white. If you do it once -- hasta la vista.Black and white. There's another aspect of logic to which we're oblivious. We hear the charge, then the responding evasion, and then ... Well, at that point it has become "complicated." And we think of Brad Pitt's next girlfriend.Our prominent liars are brazen. They know that demeanor is everything, that logic has nothing to do with it. Folks can't distinguish an airtight argument from rap lyrics.Demeanor. To think that's how we judge an argument in the modern age! To think our leaders are still selected according to magnetism, the ability to mesmerize, the gift of the gab, theatrics! Our leaders in the modern age are the very same individuals who'd be leaders in a pre-literacy society. And they're the same individuals who would be leaders in a pre-language society of grunts and screeches. Politics40003@blogcritics.org Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:32:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/10/234647.php Uriel WittenbergAs a lifelong atheist who has never had a moment's doubt about it, I'm no natural ally to proponents of intelligent design, an alternative to the theory of evolution that credits an "intelligent designer" for the origin and development of life.But I continue to be amazed by the scientific establishment's largely faith-based (and unintelligent) opposition to the theory. It's as if they have been brainwashed into unthinking adherence to "the scientific method" and have forgotten the more fundamental reason on which that method is based.Their arguments are now being played out in a legal trial in Pennsylvania -- the first direct challenge to a school district that has tried to mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. The immediate issue is the Dover, PA, school board's requirement that a four-paragraph statement be read to the students at the opening of the semester's biology class, saying in part that "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view," and advising students that a textbook that teaches intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, is available in the school library.The trial is expected to last six weeks and draw news coverage from around the world. The two sides agree that the case will probably make its way to the US Supreme Court regardless of outcome.On evolution's side is a legal team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, says the plaintiffs will call six experts in history, theology, philosophy of science and science to show that "Intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testable."Their main expert witness is biologist Kenneth R. Miller, a professor at Brown University and the co-author of the widely used high school textbook Biology. He was the only person to take the stand on Sept. 26, the trial's opening day. He denigrated intelligent design as "a negative argument against evolution," in which there is no "positive argument" to test whether an intelligent designer actually exists. If the theory is not testable, he said, it is not science.The argument for intelligent design is indeed "negative" and untestable. But it is also "based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic," as Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe explains in "Design for Living," a pro-ID op-ed piece published last February in the New York Times . (Prof. Behe is a leading intelligent design theorist who will be testifying for the defense.)Besides intelligent design's upsetting an intellectual framework with which many scientists are comfortable, opponents object to the theory on the basis that it is just "the 21st-century version of creationism," as a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Eric Rothschild, put it in his opening argument.He said that the board's own documents would show that its members initially had discussed teaching "creationism" -- one former member said he wanted class time evenly split between creationism and evolution -- and that they substituted the words "intelligent design" only when they were made aware by lawyers of the constitutional problems involved. (In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creation science in public schools was unconstitutional because it was based on religion.)But arguing about the defendants' motives is also an unsound argument against intelligent design. Even if proponents of ID are unmasked as creationists and devout believers, they can legitimately take the position that they have found scientific evidence in support of their religious faith -- and that they are only advocating that this scientific evidence be taught in science classrooms.Thankfully, the plaintiffs' courtoom strategy also contains rational elements. Prof. Miller will confront the ID theory directly and seek to show the court that the Pandas textbook is "inaccurate and downright false in every section."That would be the right way to conduct this argument.A technical examination of the basis for intelligent design may well find it uninformed. I'm no biologist, and on that issue, I'm an agnostic.The above based on A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit and Evolution Lawsuit Opens in Pennsylvania, New York Times, September 26, 2005 and September 27, 2005 respectively. Above text includes excerpts from these articles.See Also: My more detailed criticism of mainstream science's objections in Issue Ratatouille (among several topics discussed in that piece). Edited:nd Edited:cr Sci/Tech39368@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:46:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/20/115320.php Uriel WittenbergCan you objectively recall experiences involving yourself? Can you rely on your memory of events in your life? Can you remember your past without distortion -- without underplaying some elements or enhancing others?I was aware that Enlightenment values are on the wane in our modern world, that reason and rationality are in retreat, that relativism wins more converts each year, that cellphone ringtones are sounding the death knell of contemplation and thought. But even I never thought I'd be the last man on earth who would answer yes to such questions. Never, that is, until my recent immersion in Cambridge University. In vain did I canvass among my 120 fellow students in Cambridge's summer literature program, seeking a like-minded soul with faith in the integrity of his own thought processes. I finally came to suspect that the species to which I belong -- an order of homo sapiens possessed of a belief in truth, rationality, impartial inquiry, and the possibility of reconciling opposing views through the use of reason (a process referred to in former times as "the marketplace of ideas") -- may, once I expire, be completely extinct. That event -- my expiry, and the termination of the species I represent -- won't necessarily cause insurmountable grief to all the wonderful people I encountered at Cambridge. My native proclivities brought about no small degree of consternation among many of the folks I met. And even among some I never met. Dr. Fred Parker, for example, the director of the literature program, responded as follows when I dropped him a note requesting an audience:I would rather not meet with you, for I might find it difficult to remain polite.... Nevertheless, I assure you that I will give serious thought to your criticisms.I had indeed enclosed, together with my request to meet, some comments I'd written about the program's "plenary lectures." (The so-called plenary lectures were daily lectures to be attended jointly by all the literature students. The courses, on the other hand, involved smaller groups, as 4 or 5 alternative courses were given in each course time slot.) But that didn't seem to adequately explain Parker's refusal to meet even once with a student wishing to discuss the program for which, as director, he presumably bore some responsibility. Many students besides myself had quite negative opinions about various aspects of the program. Had no one told Parker? Students were urged to fill out and submit feedback questionnaires at the end of the program each year. Had last year's students been markedly more satisfied than this year's? Or did the reigning view, that memories are always self-indulgent, correctly describe Parker's recollection of comments received the year before? Or -- another possibility -- did Parker perhaps prefer to confine himself to the uniformly joyous expressions of student pleasure exhibited at the summer school's website:Enthusiastic and excellent! ... Well presented, lively, interactive discussion.... Very realistic and interesting presentations.... Speaker very dynamic, humorous and knowledgeable.... The lecturer did a great job of fitting loads of difficult, detailed info into such little time without confusing jargon.... Excellent in every way. There certainly seemed to be some kind of disconnect between the program organizers' conceptions and the reality observed on the ground. This year's designated theme for the plenary lectures was Conversation. Yet perhaps the most striking aspect of the summer literature program experience was the paucity of real conversation -- indeed, the failure to recognize basic tenets of conversation. One might consider conversation with oneself -- specifically, the self-querying involved in the process of recollection -- to be the most elementary form of conversation. But how satisfied should one be with that conversation if the memories it produces are biased and distorted? One could say that at Cambridge, even conversation with oneself was viewed as a very iffy venture.Then there was conversation between distinct individuals. Not once in this literature program did I witness an actual classroom debate between proponents of different interpretations or ideas, although our class sizes, at 20 to 25 students, were well suited to discussion. One emblematic classroom exchange, in a course taught by Adrian Barlow, involved Ian McEwan's novel, Atonement. Most of the novel is a novel-within-the-novel, authored by a character named Briony. Briony's novel is a story about herself and other characters in her life, including her sister. But, as she acknowledges to the reader, she has altered the story to give it a happy ending. She also informs the reader that her novel cannot be published so long as an evil character named Paul remains living, because he would use legal measures to block publication and prevent harm to his reputation. One idea that was dear to the hearts of most summer program participants was that one could really never discern truth at all -- that it was scarcely a meaningful concept. Catering to this notion, Barlow stressed how questionable Briony's entire account was, how there was little the reader could firmly depend upon, how any part of the story might well be her invention, how it was all really rather ambiguous and murky.But Briony's story is actually sharply defined, and she appears to have personal integrity. Of course appearances can mislead, and any story can contain distortions and lies. But I could see no basis for suspecting this of Briony's story, apart from the altered ending which Briony herself openly acknowledges.I raised the question: "What hint does the text offer that anything besides the altered ending is untrue?"This question was unwelcome, suggesting as it did the idea of accurate, unbiased depictions of an objective reality. A student rejoined: "The story was published, even though she said it couldn't be published because of legal obstacles."Now. There is no indication that Briony's novel has been published in her world -- that is, the fictional world created by McEwan, of which Briony is a part. The student was pointing out that Briony's novel had been published in our world -- as McEwan's novel, Atonement. Thus, the student's argument went, we could not rely on Briony, because Briony had told us that the evil Paul would prevent publication. But.... That was an absurd line of reasoning. I responded: "But Paul is a fictional character." The fact that Paul had not prevented McEwan's publication of Atonement proved nothing about whether the fictional Briony's account was accurate in her world.But the discussion -- point, rebuttal, counter-rebuttal -- had gone on long enough, because debate was unacceptable. Barlow suavely interceded: "We end up going in circles." Wasn't that the way it always was, his manner projected, when one tried to reconcile different views and get at the truth of something?There was no further discussion of the issue. And that was about as far as any classroom debate I witnessed went in the literature program. Debate was a fearsome thing. All that clashing. It made everyone nervous. Even innocent bystanders could get injured. Debate was equally objectionable with subjects that were controversial in the real world. At one point in another novel discussed in Barlow's class, Monica Ali's Brick Lane, a leaflet comes through the letterbox of the main characters' family home. They are Bangladeshi immigrants, Muslims, living in London. One of the daughters reads the leaflet aloud for her father:Multicultural MurderIn our schools it's multicultural murder. Do you know what they are teaching your children today? in domestic science your daughter will learn how to make a kebab, or fry a bhaji. For his history lesson your son will be studying Africa or India or some other dark and distant land. English people, he will learn, are Wicked Colonialists.And in Religious Instruction, what will your child be taught? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? No. Krishna, Abraham and Muhammad.Christianity is being gently slaughtered. It is "only one" of the world's "great religions." Indeed, in our local schools you could be forgiven for thinking that Islam is the official religion.Should we be forced to put up with this? When the truth is that it is a religion of hate and intolerance. When Muslim extremists are planning to turn Britain into an Islamic Republic, using a combination of immigration, high birth rates and conversion....Another student in Barlow's class, Janine, was a high school teacher in Luxembourg. She'd remarked that she intended to use Brick Lane in her own teaching. Barlow commented, in the context of his remarks on the "Multicultural Murder" leaflet: "I'm glad you'll be teaching this novel -- it's entirely appropriate for 16-year-olds." Why would it be appropriate? Surely because it was provocative and would stimulate debate among the students over different points of view concerning these very current issues. Yet Barlow's own class had absolutely no exchanges about these issues. Nazneen, the novel's gentle protagonist, has a boyfriend, Karim, another Muslim also residing in London. Karim feels alienated in Britain. He is a political activist and could conceivably become a terrorist. Yet Britain is his home:Karim had never even been to Bangladesh. Nazneen felt a stab of pity. Karim was born a foreigner.... Karim did not have his place in the world. That was why he defended it.Barlow read out the line, Karim did not have his place in the world, and remarked: "This is true of many Muslim youth today." Then he went on to other matters, offering no opening for student input. There was no discussion of the topic.Meanwhile, in the world outside Cambridge, controversy was raging in the British news media over issues surrounding Britain's 1.6 million Muslims. British-born Muslims had carried out terrorist bombings in London the month before. An ICM Research poll of Muslims in Britain (pdf document) had found that 5% considered "further attacks by British suicide bombers in the UK" to be "justified." A further 13% said they didn't know whether or not they were justified. Also, 20% reported that in the short time since the bombings, they or a family member had experienced "hostility or abuse from non-Muslims" because of their religion.But at Cambridge, this tempest might as well have been taking place on another planet. I heard practically no discussion whatever of such topics.There was another topic that might have stirred discussion (though it didn't), since we were directly confronted with it in several of the plenary lectures: Academic silliness, particularly the kind for which literary criticism is notorious. The topic of academic silliness was also put under our noses by a novel in which it is satirized -- David Lodge's Nice Work, another of the works discussed in Barlow's course:Robyn Penrose, Temporary Lecturer in English Literature at the University of Rummidge, holds that "character" is a bourgeois myth, an illusion created to reinforce the ideology of capitalism. As evidence for this assertion she will point to the fact that the rise of the novel (the literary genre of "character" par excellence in the eighteenth century) coincided with the triumph of capitalism; and that the modernist and post-modernist deconstruction of the classic novel in the twentieth century has coincided with the terminal crisis of capitalism.Why the classic novel should have collaborated with the spirit of capitalism is perfectly obvious to Robyn. Both are expressions of a secularised Protestant ethic, both dependent on the idea of an autonomous individual self who is responsible for and in control of his/her own destiny, seeking happiness and fortune in competition with other autonomous selves. This is true of the novel considered both as commodity and as mode of representation. (Thus Robyn in full seminar spate.)Coincidentally, an idea very similar to Penrose's notion that character is an illusion had been urged upon us by Jill Paton-Walsh in a plenary lecture delivered prior to our discussion of Nice Work. I politely pointed this out in class. But, alas, Barlow immediately moved on to other matters and there was no follow-up. It would have been worth reflecting upon. Penrose was a fictional character through which Lodge, himself a former academic, satirizes academic folly. Paton-Walsh was a real-life speaker in our summer school program, addressing us in earnest. Lodge has written that[a] lot of academic literary criticism and theory ... frankly no longer seems worth the considerable effort of keeping up with it. A vast amount of it is not . . . a contribution to human knowledge but the demonstration of professional mastery by translating known facts into more and more arcane metalanguages.[Quoted in "Right, here goes," by Scott Stossel, The Atlantic Monthly magazine, April, 1996 issue.]Lodge's point here was not so terribly different from those "criticisms" of mine which had so outraged the literature program director. But Lodge and I were criticizing different orders of transgression. Lodge's focus was academic folly within the profession, where the victims are mainly people who, for whatever reasons, have voluntarily embraced a profession requiring them to swim through a soup of "arcane metalanguages."I, however, had addressed the infliction of this nonsense upon lay people -- people like myself. I wasn't a professional; I wasn't an academic; and I wasn't here for career promotion or money. In fact, darn it, I was paying money. The sole point of being here was the pleasure of literature: to deepen my understanding and appreciation of geniuses who have won readers with original and interesting works like Atonement and Brick Lane. I certainly wasn't here to puzzle over "arcane metalanguages" fabricated by people whose only readers were coerced by the imperatives of academic careers. So why did I have lecturers presenting me with impenetrable items of esoterica like, The implied interlocutor is always assimilated to different categories of silence?Lodge's criticisms seemed quite reasonable and I wished him well; but I was talking about another category of victimhood. It's like the difference between when a car dealer buys a car and when a simple consumer buys a car. As is recognized by consumer statutes in many jurisdictions, the consumer is entitled to a higher standard of protection against fraud, abuse and misrepresentation. I wasn't an insider, in other words. I was an innocent. I had done nothing to deserve this.And what of my fellow victims? What were their feelings? My explorations led to further conversations. Those "criticisms" I'd written, for which I'd been barred from Parker's ballpark, had been in the form of a short essay I'd titled "The Downside." The piece had been generally approved, even praised, by most of the students in my immediate circle. Outside that circle was another matter. One conversation, with Maureen, an American lady in her 50's, went like this:Uriel: So ... did you agree, or disagree?Maureen: Oh, I disagreed. I love the program. The courses, the plenary lectures....Uriel: Love? Well ... what about the lecture on autism? [That was the one with the inscrutable revelation concerning interlocutors and categories of silence.]Maureen: Oh, I absolutely loved that lecture. I adored it.Uriel: Well, I quoted a sentence from that lecture. Did you understand it?Maureen: Well, you certainly can't expect, in a one-hour lecture, that people are going to pay attention to most of what is said.And with that, it was plain that Maureen had not the least desire to prolong the discussion.That was among the more illuminating conversations I had concerning my "Downside." One student damned it as "inflammatory." Another was moved to write me a letter ("Mr. Wittenberg, I take great offence to your essay....") which he had a go-between hand-deliver to me to safeguard his (or her) anonymity. Yet another, a lady from Germany called Bianka Reinhardt, furiously advised me to Fuck off! at breakfast one morning in the St. Catherine's College dining hall, a speech her friend Sarah Wray found so admirable that she raised her hands and clapped in appreciation.Ah, Cambridge! The life of the mind.By the way, although Parker never relented in his refusal to admit me to his sight, I did get to speak to Sarah Ormrod, the director of all the Cambridge summer programs. (Confusingly, Ormrod is "director" of all the programs, while Parker is "director" of one of them, the literature program. Also confusing is the ambiguous name given to another of the summer programs -- "International Summer Schools" -- a label which would fit any of the other programs as well. But that would presuppose that someone might want to attempt the treacherous route from words to meaning.) Ormrod and I had a courteous and reasonably friendly chat for about an hour. Then, about an hour afterwards, as I was talking with one of the teachers outdoors by the summer school office, she approached to ask to speak to me again. When I went to her, she said: It's been brought to my attention that you have a website with a very great deal on it. If you were intending to write something negative about the summer schools -- like, the Cambridge summer schools are terrible -- we would certainly disapprove of that.I allowed that it had occurred to me to write something. But then I added something completely disarming: "I would not write anything unethical."What could she possibly say to that?(Continued....) Culture38243@blogcritics.org Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:53:20 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/06/001358.php Uriel WittenbergGuest New York Times columnist Matt Miller offers some thoughts in a column last Saturday which strike me as thoroughly persuasive:Speaking just between us - between one who writes columns and those who read them - I've had this nagging question about the whole enterprise we're engaged in. Is persuasion dead? Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn't already believe? If so, are there enough places where this mingling of minds occurs to sustain a democracy?Marshaling a case to persuade those who start from a different position is a lost art. Politicos huddle with like-minded souls in opinion cocoons that seem impervious to facts. [Edited excerpt from Is Persuasion Dead?, New York Times, June 4, 2005. (Also available at urielw.com/refs/050604.htm.)]I wrote in a quite similar vein last November (though I proferred "blocs" rather than "cocoons"):Our reality is bleaker even than the one portrayed in the movie, The Matrix. It's something that renders polemics pointless, something that should shut us all up. The characters in Matrix, after all, enjoy an unhampered ability to communicate with each other. There is a single and unique simulated world for everybody. That's why the Matrix allegory is really too cheerful. There are no "separate realities"! Even Bush and Kerry supporters hear the same thing.In our real world, by contrast, we are divided into innumerable reality blocs. We might call them opinion blocs. And the information boundaries between these blocs are impregnable. Allow me to expose myself here, for the public interest. Taking myself as an example, it's practically inconceivable that anything would lead me to change my mind about an opinion I've already developed. And I assure you I'm exceptionally open-minded. You, dear reader, are the same way. If you got an opinion, it ain't gonna change.So. This certainly raises uncomfortable questions about what we're doing here. And about communication in general.[Edited excerpt from Irreconcilable Differences.]The only point on which I'm obliged to regretfully part ways from Mr. Miller is when he supplements his observation that there is no communication with the suggestion that it makes no difference anyways. Just as I did (in making a different point), he offers himself as an example:The embarrassing truth is that we earnest chin-strokers often get it wrong anyway. Take me. I hadn't thought much about Iraq before I read Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," a platonic ideal of careful analysis meant to persuade. It worked. I was persuaded! So what should we conclude when a talent like Pollack can convince us - and then the whole thing turns out to be based on a premise (W.M.D.) that is false? If serious efforts to get it right can lead to tragic errors, why care about a culture of persuasion at all? On one level, everyone needs a good rationalization at the core of his professional life; mine holds that the struggle to think things through, even when we fail, is redeeming. Miller poses the questions -- "what should we conclude," "why care about a culture of persuasion at all?" -- but, strangely, offers no better reason for working towards communication than this meagre, "even when we fail, [it's] redeeming."Miller then conjures the conclusion: "if you believe that meeting our collective challenges requires greater collective understanding, we've got to persuade [politicians and mass media outlets] to try."Let me fill in the answers Miller seems to have in mind, though he leaves them implicit: Of course communication and public debate are beneficial. Not just because the struggle is "redeeming" (whatever that means). And notwithstanding the fact that they sometimes lead to wrong conclusions. Generally speaking, rational public debate -- could we only achieve such a thing -- would improve our level of insight, the quality of our decisions, and thus our ability to achieve shared goals. Can any of this be doubted? The alternative would be to abandon the idea of self-government and consign ourselves to whatever fate brings us.Miller offers no prescriptions for improving communication and insight. I offer two:University programs should be instituted with sufficient government financing to attract bright students in large numbers to public policy analysis as a viable professional career. It would be desirable to have 1% of the workforce engaged full-time. A rational electorate is an investment that would pay for itself. (Elaboration at my Easy Answers to World Priorities.) Recognize that improving communication requires not only incentives for insight, but deterrents against the widespread practice of distorting public debate through lies. (Mistaken War also discusses the Iraqi WMD issue and proposes that some people should be charged with treason for using false premises to promote war.) Culture30597@blogcritics.org Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:13:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/23/094217.php Uriel WittenbergA True Parable of Our Times In the interests of advancing public insight and assisting any future chroniclers of our times, I have elected to publicly exhibit certain recent communications with a corporation which capture many essential elements of the contemporary consumer Zeitgeist.The corporation involved is Bell Canada, a company whose business is all about communication. It is the main subsidiary of Bell Canada Enterprises, Canada's largest communications company (according to its website), and provides "local telephone, long distance, wireless communications, Internet access, data, satellite television and other services to residential and business customers through some 27 million customer connections."Bell Canada offers High Speed Internet Access service through a corporate unit known as Sympatico. I am a customer.The communications I've received from this communications company may astound and appall you. Please bear in mind that what follows is not just one man's experience, but something that highlights the contemporary condition. I am clarifying your world. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.BACKGROUNDUsers of Sympatico's Internet service may have multiple email addresses. Customers can create and/or delete their email addresses themselves at Sympatico's "self-care" website. I'd been using the address tomrsn@sympatico.ca for some time, but once it began receiving excessive spam I decided to delete it and create a new address which I'd use from then on. After deletion, of course, the address tomrsn@sympatico.ca was no longer valid, and I received error messages on attempting to retrieve mail sent to that mailbox. Question: What should happen if Joe, not knowing of my address change, sends email to tomrsn@sympatico.ca after I have deleted the address? Answer: Sympatico's system should bounce back with an automatic response to Joe telling him: Your message was rejected -- tomrsn@sympatico.ca is not a valid address. Otherwise, Joe will assume his message will reach me.I'm spelling this out awfully painstakingly so as to be accessible even to the granny generation, but really, my dears, all this is utterly elementary in the Internet world.Anyway, that's the problem here. No bounce-back is happening for messages sent to my defunct tomrsn@sympatico.ca address. There is something wrong with the Sympatico system.Below is my correspondence with Sympatico's technical support people, wherein I attempt to bring them news of this problem.As you chew on the meat of the matter, be careful to savor the incidentals as well. For example: The unwieldy Issue ID (KMM11316087V28510L0KM), suggestive of an ocean of customer issues the beleaguered company is attempting to track; The unceasing solicitations to partake of a Member Satisfaction Survey (as if one would be needed to find the reasons for dissatisfaction); The seemingly random glitch lines appearing in most of the messages from the company, which are actually unintended detritus left behind by the clumsy system which corporate representatives are using to insert boilerplate text. Thus "*****RRC:etimoreinfo,LID:mlacroix*****", for example, representsthe internal label for boilerplate text requesting "more info", andthe name of the corporate representative -- M. Lacroix -- who has prepared the message.Representatives' names are probably supposed to be confidential, but several are exposed in this way.The correspondence follows:From Uriel to SympaticoFrom: Uriel Wittenberg To: Sympatico Tech Support Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:29 PM Subject: No bounce from deleted mailboxGreetings. I deleted my <tomrsn@sympatico.ca> address today. But messages sent to it are not bounced back.I found this because I did not receive a bounce back to my <uw@urielw.com> address, as I should have because of the message shown below (sent 1:45 PM).Please advise!Thanks,Uriel [customer ID]----- Original Message ----- From: "Uriel Wittenberg" <uw@urielw.com> To: <tomrsn@sympatico.ca> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 1:45 PM Subject: hiFrom Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:04 PM Subject: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11316087V28510L0KM)Hello Mr. Wittenberg,You have reached Bell Internet Services, my name is Luke and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.You can not change the parent email account. Therefore even if you remove it from Outlook Express it is still a valide email account in ourfiles. Do not hesitate to contact us again. NetAssistant* is a free service that delivers leading edge, diagnostic and repair tools directly to your desktop. The program will detect and fix problems on your computer related to your Internet connection, e-mail or Web browser. You can also chat with a live Sympatico representative 24/7 via NetAssistant. Download NetAssistant today at:http://download.sympatico.ca/netassistant/netassistant.exeThank you for choosing Bell and have a nice day.Regards,Luke Electronic Customer Care Sympatico Member Services===== We hope that you were satisfied with the service that you have received via e-mail. In an on-going effort to provide the best possible Customer service, we invite you to take our Member Satisfaction Survey. We are continuously looking at ways to improve our service and we would appreciate your comments and feedback.http://eccsurvey.sympatico.ca/====== Save yourself time and visit our Internet Tips, Technical Support and Account & Billing pages to see if we already have a solution to your problem.http://service.sympatico.ca/ From Uriel to SympaticoFrom: Uriel Wittenberg To: Sympatico Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:40 PM Subject: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11316087V28510L0KM)You have misunderstood the problem.I did not attempt to change the parent email account.The main email address is [an address different from tomrsn@sympatico.ca].I deleted an extra email address I'd added to my account: <tomrsn@sympatico.ca>From Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:13 AM Subject: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11316915V43841L0KM)Hello Uriel Wittenberg,You have reached Bell Internet Services, my name is Michel and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.*****RRC:etimoreinfo,LID:mlacroix*****Your message does not contain the information we need to efficiently troubleshoot. To help you remedy this issue, please try to answer as many questions below as possible:- What email program are you using? - What is the exact problem you are having? - What operating system are you using? (Windows 98/ME/2000/NT/XP, Mac which OS version?) - Is your computer connected to a network or through a router? - Is your computer running firewall or anti-virus software? Upon receipt of this information, we will be able to assist you further.I trust that I have answered all of your questions or concerns regardingyour email problem. Do not hesitate to contact us again. NetAssistant* is a free service that delivers leading edge, diagnostic and repair tools directly to your desktop. The program will detect and fix problems on your computer related to your Internet connection, e-mail or Web browser. You can also chat with a live Sympatico representative 24/7 via NetAssistant. Download NetAssistant today at:http://download.sympatico.ca/netassistant/netassistant.exeThank you for choosing Bell and have a nice day.Regards,Michel Electronic Customer Care Sympatico Member Services====== We hope that you were satisfied with the service that you have received via e-mail. In an on-going effort to provide the best possible Customer service, we invite you to take our Member Satisfaction Survey. We are continuously looking at ways to improve our service and we would appreciate your comments and feedback.http://eccsurvey.sympatico.ca/====== Save yourself time and visit our Internet Tips, Technical Support and Account & Billing pages to see if we already have a solution to your problem.http://service.sympatico.ca/ ========[Note: The repeated items, which appear in each message from Sympatico Tech Support, are edited out of the remaining messages below for clarity.]From Uriel to SympaticoFrom: Uriel Wittenberg To: Sympatico Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:06 PM Subject: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11316915V43841L0KM)This is unbelievable. Please READ my message and THINK about the problem. Don't just copy and paste irrelevant questions. I've supplied ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEED.From Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11318498V91475L0KM)Hello Uriel Wittenberg,You have reached Bell Internet Services, my name is Kevin and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience and confusion our previous message may have caused. It can take up to 72 hours for the mail server to update an address after it has been cancelled. I have just tested the account in question and received the following error message:"tomrsn@sympatico.ca was not allowed by the SMTP server: 550 Invalid recipient: <tomrsn@sympatico.ca>"This address has now been cancelled fully and anyone attempting to send something to this address will receive this message.I trust that I have answered all of your questions or concerns regardingthis inquiry. Do not hesitate to contact us again. Thank you for choosing Bell and have a nice day.Regards,Kevin Electronic Customer Care Sympatico Member Services *****RRC:etfapology,LID:kehuxham*****From Uriel to SympaticoFrom: Uriel Wittenberg To: Sympatico Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:43 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11318498V91475L0KM)At last someone has actually read my query! Thanks Kevin.Seems to me however your system doesn't work as it should. Messages sent during those 72 hours don't reach me -- AND the sender gets no notice. Those messages just go into a black hole. That shouldn't happen.From Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11318753V95426L0KM)Hello Uriel Wittenberg,Thank you for your reply. It's Kevin again from the Bell Internet service. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.Your comments and suggestions are well-taken. Please accept our apologies for the frustration and inconvenience you have recently experienced with our email service. I have taken the liberty of passing this to our Development Team for review. If feasible, they will factor this type of feature into future server updates. Thank you for choosing Bell and have a nice day.Regards,Kevin Electronic Customer Care Sympatico Member Services *****RRC:etfdev,LID:kehuxham*****From Uriel to SympaticoFrom: Uriel Wittenberg To: Sympatico Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:44 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11318498V91475L0KM)Hello Kevin,Contrary to your advice, it is NOT the case that "anyone attempting to send something to this address will receive this message."I got not bounce-back after sending the test message shown below.So ------- THE PROBLEM STILL PERSISTS AS OF NOW.----- Original Message ----- From: "Uriel Wittenberg" <uw@urielw.com> To: <tomrsn@sympatico.ca> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:35 PM Subject: hihiFrom Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 5:15 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11334208V77536L0KM)Hello Uriel Wittenberg,You have reached Bell Internet Services, my name is Sal and I appreciatethe opportunity to respond.*****RRC:etineedpass,LID:smukbil*****In order for us to troubleshoot further, we will need you to provide us with your account password. Once we have this information, we can escalate the issue to our Network Department.Regards,Sal Electronic Customer Care Sympatico Member ServicesFrom Uriel to SympaticoFrom: Uriel Wittenberg To: Sympatico Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11334208V77536L0KM)You want me to email you my account password?Please phone me for this at [...]?From Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 8:21 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11334813V85670L0KM)Hello Mr. Wittenberg,You have reached Bell Internet Services, my name is Marc and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.*****RRC:eticallus,LID:mfrappier*****I understand you don't want to give us personal information.In this case, to better assist you, I suggest you call our Technical Helpdesk at 310-SURF (7873) in Ontario and Quebec or 1 (800) 773-2121 inother parts of Canada.From Uriel to SympaticoFrom: Uriel Wittenberg To: Sympatico Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11334813V85670L0KM)Marc, this should be EASY TO UNDERSTAND.I DELETED my address, tomrsn@sympatico.ca.When I now send a test message to that address, THERE IS NO BOUNCE-BACK indicating it's an invalid address.Surely you don't need my PASSWORD to investigate this problem.From Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No bounce from deleted mailbox (KMM11339989V52119L0KM)Hello Mr. Wittenberg,You have reached Bell Internet Services, my name is Joseph and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.I apologize for the inconvenience this issue may have caused you. You are right, your email address tomrsn@sympatico.ca is still active. The reason is that the database linked to your selfcare tool is down.I suggest therefore to try it later.From Sympatico to UrielFrom: Sympatico Member Services To: Uriel Wittenberg Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Your recent callWe're listeningDear URIEL WITTENBERG, Thank you for letting us know about the technical problems you were experiencing. Bell Canada values your business and is committed to providing our Sympatico customers with excellence in customer service. We're continually evaluating our business and looking for more efficient ways to serve our customers. Your continued support helps us to achieve this goal. If you feel your concerns were not addressed directly, or if you ever have another question, don't hesitate to let us know. That's why 310-SURF (310-7873) exists. It's there to help us help you.As a special thank you for being such a loyal customer, we would like to offer you $10 of FREE downloads from the Sympatico Music Store, powered by Puretracks(TM). Just click on the link below to receive it. http://memberservices.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/ca.exe?wts:pid=60&sid=eg&epid=70988266&a=1275182500&b=153101 Thanks again, Your representatives at Sympatico Member ServicesEPILOGUEAll communications about this issue up to the last message shown above were via email. Waits, holds, and general inefficiency normally deter at least this customer from wishing to phone the company. But after the last message above, on May 20, I phoned the Bell Vice President's Group, which is supposed to provide special assistance for overcoming obstacles. I spoke with a fellow called Roger who readily grasped the problem and said he'd transfer me to the "executive office for complaints," where they had the power to initiate a technical investigation into the issue. The transfer brought me to an automatic attendant. I left a message and await callback. As of now, messages sent to tomrsn@sympatico.ca still produce no bounceback.Kevin, above, said he had received an "invalid recipient" message upon sending to tomrsn@sympatico.ca. To explain, that is because he was sending from Sympatico's own email server. I get the same result when using Sympatico's server to send a test message. On sending from any server other than Sympatico's, however, no such message results. Of course, most Internet users in the world aren't Sympatico customers and don't use a Sympatico server, so none of them would receive an "invalid address" notification on sending to tomrsn@sympatico.ca. Sci/Tech29973@blogcritics.org Mon, 23 May 2005 09:42:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/12/153919.php Uriel WittenbergRe Senate Panel Is Set to Vote on Bolton Nomination Today, by Douglas Jehl, New York Times, May 12, 2005:For goodness sake, how complicated can this be? Did John R. Bolton, Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, misrepresent intelligence or didn't he? Did he break rules or not?This hopelessly neutered news account dares not say.The article opens with the news thatJohn R. Bolton has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a policy maker should maintain the right to "state his own reading of the intelligence" even when it differs from that of intelligence agencies. So what? As the article points out in paragraph #3,several former senior intelligence officials said the widely accepted view was that policy makers had a right to state their own views about intelligence matters, but that they also had an obligation to be accurate and to make explicit when they were stating personal opinions.Nevertheless, the article states in paragraph #2 that Democrats [sic] legislators opposed to the nomination ... said they would cite [Mr. Bolton's statement] as evidence that Mr. Bolton would adopt a loose standard for accuracy in making statements based on intelligence.Is there any reasonable basis for such an assertion? Only in paragraph #15 does the Times timidly allow that there might be:Under current practice, policy makers are free to state their own opinions, and have always insisted that intelligence agencies do not have standing to address policy issues. But in offering public assessments of intelligence information, policy makers have generally deferred to the agencies' views, as spelled out through a strict interagency clearance progress [sic].So ... Bolton's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says he intends to disregard the "strict interagency clearance process"?!If so, shouldn't paragraph #1 say something like:John R. Bolton has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a policy maker should maintain the right to "state his own reading of the intelligence" even when it differs from that of intelligence agencies. The statement defies a strict interagency clearance process requiring policy makers to defer to the agencies' views when offering public assessments of intelligence information.Is there any good reason why the Bush-friendly "policy makers have a right to state their own views" appears in paragraph #3, while the contrasting "public assessments of intelligence generally defer to the agencies' views" -- which is essential to make sense of the Democrats' opposition described in paragraph #2 -- is buried in #15?And how are these contrasting positions logically consistent? Policy makers have a right to state their own views on intelligence -- but not publicly??How is #15 even internally consistent? In offering public assessments of intelligence information, policy makers have generally deferred to the agencies' views, as spelled out through a strict interagency clearance process.Policy makers generally adhere to the "strict interagency clearance process," but not always? It's strict ... but flexible??The article reports that the Democrats circulated a summary outlining their arguments thatMr. Bolton should be disqualified because of "four distinct patterns of conduct," including his efforts to seek the removal of intelligence analysts who disagreed with him; his role in seeking "to stretch intelligence to fit his views"; his "abusive behavior and intolerance for different views" in his relations with colleagues and subordinates; and his "disingenuous or nonresponsive statements to the committee." "Four distinct patterns of conduct." Is there as much as one specific item of conduct that is factually established and clearly wrong?The Times does not disclose the answer. But it does offer the amazing news that "Republicans have prepared a rebuttal to each charge."From paragraph #16 (beginning "Among newly declassified documents being reviewed by the committee") until the end of the article (paragraph #23), the article reports nothing more than internal conflicts between Bolton and intelligence agencies, without any information to indicate who if anyone is to blame.The reporter describes newly declassified documents provided to the Times as if he scarcely understands English: "Many ... reflect intense, angry debate between Mr. Bolton's office and senior intelligence officials." That could mean anything. Maybe Bolton's a nut. Or maybe he's a committed, hardworking patriot.The bottom line is that "Mr. Bolton never delivered the testimony" to which the agencies objected. So where's the beef?Times-related items at urielw.com > The Times: News That's Unfit Politics29422@blogcritics.org Thu, 12 May 2005 15:39:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/29/003013.php Uriel WittenbergYou may be acquainted with Matrix I -- the movie that brilliantly concretized an abstraction which, until then, philosophy professors had had for centuries to explain with mere words: the genuine possibility, a metaphysical inevitability for each of us (though some deny it), that the world we perceive is wholly illusory. In Matrix I, the real world is a desolate, ravaged place. The sun is history -- it's been extinguished. Apart from a motley band of rebels, most people spend their entire lives in "pods," immobile. The evil aliens who control the world sustain them only to draw nourishment from the kind of battery charge that the human life current provides.The aliens understand that the human animal cannot subsist without some sense of society and purpose. So they provide it -- the sense, that is -- via a plug physically inserted into the brain of each pod's inhabitant. Through these plugs, the humans' brains are all connected to a central computer. From that point, of course, the mechanism of illusion is straightforward. You're no doubt aware that all brain activity is electrical, including the signals from the five physical senses on which all our perceptions of the material world are based. The aliens simply do essentially the same thing you do in your morning shower when you pull the thingie to switch the water from the bath faucet to the shower head. They divert the brain's connections from the five senses to the false sensory signals generated by the computer. Thus is wrought a completely synthetic reality. The humans have no way to know it, but the truth, as one character informs another, is that "you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind." (Script here.)How this works as an allegory for our actual condition in this "information age" of ours hardly bears mentioning. You know it already. Funny man Jon Stewart is suddenly everyone's darling because he merely alluded to our condition on CNN's Crossfire last October. There was no need to spell it out:JON STEWART: I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad. (LAUGHTER) PAUL BEGALA: We have noticed. STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. (LAUGHTER) TUCKER CARLSON: But in its defense...(CROSSTALK) STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say... (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys. CARLSON: Yes. STEWART: Stop. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America. BEGALA: OK. Now (CROSSTALK) STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...CARLSON: How do you pay? STEWART: The people -- not well. (LAUGHTER) BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure. STEWART: But you can sleep at night. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns. [Excerpted from transcript of Oct. 15 Crossfire.]I've been constructing my very important and logically airtight arguments about the failures of public debate, about delusion, about cultural pollution and the imminent end of everything. This guy Stewart just has to say "Stop hurting America." Everyone knew. The phrase itself has swept America and is now part of our lexicon. (Google it and see for yourself.) But the problem is deeper and darker than the news media's false portrayal of the world. The reality is bleaker even than the sunless Matrix world. It's something that renders polemics pointless, something that should shut us all up. The Matrix's slaves, after all, enjoy an unhampered ability to communicate with each other, just like in the (apparent) world outside the movie theatre. How this works is that the Matrix computer not only generates the inputs to each person's brain, but also receives the brain's outputs -- for example, a person's neural commands to his legs, arms and vocal chords. And the computer then generates everyone's subsequent brain inputs accordingly.So when a person "says" something, he "hears" himself say it. And everyone around him also hears it. Everyone hears the same thing. The point is, there is a single and unique simulated world for everybody. That's why the Matrix allegory is really too cheerful. There are no "separate realities"! Even Bush and Kerry supporters hear the same thing.In our real world, by contrast, we are divided into innumerable reality blocs. We might call them opinion blocs. And the information boundaries between these blocs are impregnable. Allow me to expose myself here, for the public interest. Taking myself as an example, it's practically inconceivable that anything would lead me to change my mind about an opinion I've already developed. And I assure you I'm exceptionally open-minded. You, dear reader, are the same way. If you got an opinion, it ain't gonna change.So. This certainly raises uncomfortable questions about what we're doing here. And about communication in general.Besides the opinions I already hold, my general opinions are often applicable to a brand new issue I've never heard of before. So I'm quite capable of having an inflexible opinion instantly when an issue arises for the first time. My own particular opinion bloc, since we're on the subject, has an estimated size which I confess is not especially large. As I've become more realistic about the world's separate realities, it's begun to dawn on me that its population may not significantly exceed one. Which, certainly, does not make overturning my views any less unthinkable.I'm not talking about an inability to recognize error. Everyone makes mistakes, and virtually any ass knows he's no exception. I am talking about the inflexibility of developed opinions -- the same inflexibility you yourself share (though most people enjoy the validation of a more populous bloc).I sometimes look back on things I wrote some time ago -- for example, my September 1, 2002 letter to my diplomacy school students, or the one from the year before (just before 9/11) to my Tsinghua students -- and I think, this is just so right. It's wondrous how the passage of time has left my conviction totally undiminished. That 2002 letter, for example, says that "the most potent threat to freedom, democracy and other fundamental American values" isunbridled corporate power and the way it corrupts politics, news reporting, and (via the entertainment media) the culture at large. This worsening problem is probably best appreciated and most often criticized by commentators within the U.S. itself, but it seems only radical solutions could address the problem, and none is under serious consideration.Isn't that just too true? No radical reform is on the agenda. No reform under discussion could credibly address our polity's core problems. Our news is manipulated. Our democracy is on its way to being extinguished, like the Matrix's sun. And nothing is being done. ("Stop hurting America," though touching, won't work.) But I understand these feelings of mine cannot breach the confines of my private opinion bloc. This disconnectedness between people's opinions was of course a national obsession for a while in 2004, as millions pondered how their fellow citizens could have re-elected a president they perceived as plainly dishonest and dangerous. Communication, as we know, is fundamental to society. We must establish the wiring, we must link up our pods. And some blocs are talking about it. But has news of the issue surfaced within the dominant blocs?FURTHERFurther observations on our disconnectednessThe potentially interesting topic of whistle-blowing drew me for a second visit last November to the Toronto Debating Society. Whistle-blowing, fundamentally, is about exposing truth -- but some personal exchanges I had with participants after the debate illustrate our culture's delusion problem.One person, a mother in her 40's, told me how she'd been a "whistle-blower" herself. She'd become aware of some kind of fraud taking place in a corporation she'd begun working for shortly before. She'd been pressured to sign some documents and felt personally implicated. And, she told me with evident emotion, she'd spoken up -- presented the facts to senior officers of the corporation -- and had subsequently been threatened and intimidated. She'd then decided not to be involved any longer, and had tendered her resignation. "Was the crime stopped?" I asked her."Uhhhh .... I really can't say for sure."That, dear readers, is not whistle-blowing. It is self-delusion. The lady has transformed what appears to be one of the significant experiences of her lifetime -- from the truth, that she caved in, into a memory of an act of courage.Remarkably, a second participant whom I spoke with at the same event exhibited exactly the same kind of self-delusion. In his case the "whistle-blower" was his father. That man had become outraged upon discovering that a major American corporation's prospective business operations in Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon), operations he'd supported in his capacity as a lawyer, were grossly exploitative. His "whistle-blowing" consisted of getting drunk and loudly denouncing the lot of them at an executive meeting -- an act which got him fired on the spot.The person telling me the story was proud of his father for what he'd done. He wanted to tell me, however, that his father himself considered the act questionable because he'd violated the ethical obligation of client confidentiality. So, his point was, the rightness of whistle-blowing was sometimes difficult to assess. That case isn't difficult at all, I said. It's easy. "Well, I don't want to discuss it," he said. The point, he maintained, is that whistle-blowing is not a "panacea."This same person was later kindly urging me to join the society, and I confided what it is that limits my enjoyment of the club's activity. His response there too is telling. My problem with "debating" is that typically you're arguing a position that does not reflect your own beliefs. It's just a game. That's fine if you like that sort of thing, but personally I don't get much of a kick out of promoting some arbitrary position that I don't believe in. My sincere beliefs already meet with enough disagreement. I hardly need to pursue additional, artificial arguments.But the man was against the idea of debates in which participants would debate their actual beliefs. Why? He said the problem would be that people would get carried away by their emotions, and that in consequence their arguments would be irrational. Well. Doesn't that just say it all? How could our differences be anything but irreconcilable when we can't discuss them rationally? The man's spontaneous remark contains a great truth.How widespread is this phenomenon? How many of us can't or won't frankly face the truth? 50%? 80%? How does the incidence of this disease vary across cultures? Is it more or less pronounced in ours?And ... how about yourself? STILL FURTHERCommunication Occurs in U.S. SenateOur disconnectedness turns out not to be absolute.The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was going to vote, April 19, on President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. The panel's 10 Republicans were expected to unanimously support the nomination, a move that would have sent the nomination to the Senate floor. But then communication happened.In the course of a two-hour meeting of committee members in which two Democratic senators spoke against Bolton, one of the Republican senators listened ... and heard. He then "stunned" his colleagues, according to the New York Times, by changing his mind about supporting Bolton without further review.The Times reports the reaction to this singular event by another Republican on the panel who had also had misgivings about Bolton:The second Republican ... did not make his views known at the hearing, but told reporters later that he was glad that the vote had been postponed."I don't know if I've ever seen, in a setting like this, a senator changing his mind as a result of what other senators said," [he] said. "The process worked. It's kind of refreshing."["Senate Panel Postpones Vote on U.N. Nominee," New York Times, April 20, 2005.]ADDENDUMA Thesis Undermined(May 2, 2005)I come before you penitent and humbled.I was wrong.Wrong, wrong, wretchedly wrong.It began just like any other difference. Victor Plenty posted a comment (below) claiming that something in my piece was wrong -- some minor detail involving the movie, Matrix. Hardly anything remarkable there.But then....Ever since this hit me, a scene from another movie has been replaying in my mind:You know what I've seen? I've seen killers walk free because the eyewitness was an alcoholic. I've seen sex offenders that couldn't be touched because the victim was a call girl. Credibility-- It's the only currency that means anything on this kind of playing field. Dean's got the tape, and he's gonna come out with it; and when he does, I want his credibility. I want people to know he's lying before they hear what he says.Jon Voight's bloodless spymaster was explaining the way the world works to his team (in Enemy of the State), but now it's as if he was whispering those words into my ear as a warning to me. To continue.Plenty went on to defend his claim. There too, of course, nothing out of the ordinary.Except that.... Well, he was somewhat persuasive. References to the script and all that. And.... Yes. This is beyond anything observed in the U.S. Senate. With the Bolton matter, a senator was willing to postpone a vote pending further review. In this matter, however, my difference with Plenty has been entirely reconciled. So.I apologize to everyone for the inconvenience.This is, obviously, bad news from my personal point of view.But there's a bright side. Humanity's prospects have considerably improved.Related: Delusion Carries Bush (Nov. 3, 2004) Politics28795@blogcritics.org Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:30:13 EDT