The ‘Daily Me’ is consistent with individuals’ trend towards complete solipsism that we have discussed in class. A common perception is that the ability to chose which media are exposed to and which we ignore is highly democratic. Sunstein’s fundamental argument is against this perception. He argues it is more damaging (undemocratic) to burry yourself deeper and deeper under your preferred ideology. A cornerstone of democracy is that all viewpoints and ideologies are tolerated and heard, not only ones pleasing to you. A teacher once told me that one does not truly believe in free speech until they can tolerate speech that they detest.

It is interesting to me that people will sort through the information glut to find an ideology that reinforces their beliefs, yet won’t do the same work to try to decipher the truth about that particular ideology. Its postmodern news consumption at its finest; an information society so cluttered with opposing viewpoints that no trace of an underlying truth is evident. For example, why aren’t people more alarmed by the Bush Administration’s denial of the ‘Due Process Rights’ to detainees? What is this, the Scottsboro Boys again? I find it no coincidence that as postmodernism manifests itself in technology’s relationship with society, it does in government policies too.



"The heart of the matter is that the president broke the law, deliberately and repeatedly, no matter what his rationale was for doing so. We do not have a system of government in which the president has the right to violate laws, even if he believes doing so will produce good results. . . .

The NSA eavedsdropping scandal, as its core, is not an eavesddropping scandal. It is a lawbreaking scandal . . ."

If people opposed to the government and their continuing fear-mongering and bullying are considered un-American, then call me a terrorist. How is opposing the unraveling of the constitution un-American? Isn’t that more American if anything? And of the lasting effects of 9-11, I think turning patriotism into a contest is among the worst. That and all the shitty bake sales and sing-alongs and bad theater in the name of ‘not letting the terrorists win.”

The ‘Daily Me’ is consistent with individuals’ trend towards complete solipsism that we have discussed in class. A common perception is that the ability to chose which media are exposed to and which we ignore is highly democratic. Sunstein’s fundamental argument is against this perception. He argues it is more damaging (undemocratic) to burry yourself deeper and deeper under your preferred ideology. A cornerstone of democracy is that all viewpoints and ideologies are tolerated and heard, not only ones pleasing to you. A teacher once told me that one does not truly believe in free speech until they can tolerate speech that they detest.

It is interesting to me that people will sort through the information glut to find an ideology that reinforces their beliefs, yet won’t do the same work to try to decipher the truth about that particular ideology. Its postmodern news consumption at its finest; an information society so cluttered with opposing viewpoints that no trace of an underlying truth is evident. For example, why aren’t people more alarmed by the Bush Administration’s denial of the ‘Due Process Rights’ to detainees? What is this, the Scottsboro Boys again? I find it no coincidence that as postmodernism manifests itself in technology’s relationship with society, it does in government policies too.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

The heart of the matter is that the president broke the law, deliberately and repeatedly, no matter what his rationale was for doing so. We do not have a system of government in which the president has the right to violate laws, even if he believes doing so will produce good results. . . .

The NSA eavedsdropping scandal, as its core, is not an eavesddropping scandal. It is a lawbreaking scandal . . .

If people opposed to the government and their continuing fear-mongering and bullying are considered un-American, then call me a terrorist. How is opposing the unraveling of the constitution un-American? Isn’t that more American if anything? And of the lasting effects of 9-11, I think turning patriotism into a contest is among the worst. That and all the shitty bake sales and sing-alongs and bad theater in the name of ‘not letting the terrorists win.”

The ‘Daily Me’ is consistent with individuals’ trend towards complete solipsism that we have discussed in class. A common perception is that the ability to chose which media are exposed to and which we ignore is highly democratic. Sunstein’s fundamental argument is against this perception. He argues it is more damaging (undemocratic) to burry yourself deeper and deeper under your preferred ideology. A cornerstone of democracy is that all viewpoints and ideologies are tolerated and heard, not only ones pleasing to you. A teacher once told me that one does not truly believe in free speech until they can tolerate speech that they detest.

It is interesting to me that people will sort through the information glut to find an ideology that reinforces their beliefs, yet won’t do the same work to try to decipher the truth about that particular ideology. Its postmodern news consumption at its finest; an information society so cluttered with opposing viewpoints that no trace of an underlying truth is evident. For example, why aren’t people more alarmed by the Bush Administration’s denial of the ‘Due Process Rights’ to detainees? What is this, the Scottsboro Boys again? I find it no coincidence that as postmodernism manifests itself in technology’s relationship with society, it does in government policies too.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

The heart of the matter is that the president broke the law, deliberately and repeatedly, no matter what his rationale was for doing so. We do not have a system of government in which the president has the right to violate laws, even if he believes doing so will produce good results. . . .

The NSA eavedsdropping scandal, as its core, is not an eavesddropping scandal. It is a lawbreaking scandal . . .

If people opposed to the government and their continuing fear-mongering and bullying are considered un-American, then call me a terrorist. How is opposing the unraveling of the constitution un-American? Isn’t that more American if anything? And of the lasting effects of 9-11, I think turning patriotism into a contest is among the worst. That and all the shitty bake sales and sing-alongs and bad theater in the name of ‘not letting the terrorists win.”

The Precession of the Simulacrum was dense, but at its core I believe it to be relevant to trends in our society. In its essence, the article is saying that representations or interpretations of reality come first, in virtual worlds, then society adopts that reality. If Disneyland is responsible for constructing our reality, then why can’t we build a “Politician Land” or even further a “Democracy Land” which we imitate and adopt as our own reality.

The article discusses the different interpretations of representation in its relation to reality, not unlike Stuart Hall’s theories about representation and meaning and how meaning is portrayed through absence. What he calls the “old theory” of representation claims that representation of reality creates our actual reality. His “new theory” directly reinforces the idea of the simulacrum. It states that representation itself creates our reality and because there is meaning is not fixed. But isn’t that just the argument to end all arguments? Playing the “the image is reality” card is no different than playing the “because the bible or God says so” card. There is no proof to back it up. In the end, facts win arguments, not theories on how there may not really be any facts at all. We could be seeing mixed representations of the war in Iraq, but in the end, the people are really dead. If the purposeless loss of human lives is a reality or moral that has been constructed through representation, it is a popular one, and one that I support, regardless of my morals having no actual meaning, according to the Simulacrum.

Blogger/mainstream conflict that I thought was interesting: http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/networks_struggle_to_get_blogg.php

Rove is filthy, check this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

I would first like to start by commenting on the absurdity of the childish bickering going on over Kerry’s botched joke. Who among us haven’t told a horrible joke? The key is for the captain to go down with the ship, for the joke teller to acknowledge his or her blunder, and hit the audience with another zinger to keep their head above water. That’s beside the point. The real point is the huge deal the GOP has made, again questioning Kerry’s patriotism. Are the midterm elections turning into Bush vs. Kerry round 2? Maybe the GOP should stop deliberating on people’s comments that supposedly denigrate the troops, and focus on their own decisions and policies which are LITERALLY detrimental to the troops. Why is it that the people actually responsible for throwing the troops into harm’s way, the GOP, are able to point fingers at Kerry who told a bad joke that has zero impact on the troops themselves?

The Daily Show touched in this last night. They put together a montage of jokes that Bush told in the past about the lack of WMD’s and a reference he made to his propensity to over-enjoy himself when in the Houston area. This joke was made while addressing thousands of homeless and battered Katrina victims. Now that’s comedy!

The 2 fiction pieces we read for this week tie into the Kurzweil piece nicely. Kurzweil portrays a dislike for the flesh itself. He argues that the mind and the body can be separated, at which point the mind can flourish without the limitations of the body. This notion is played out in Gibson’s piece. Lise, a cyborg, is able to flourish as an artist once her body became artificial and as a result, immortal. To think of humans as program as they do in Gibson’s piece brings about the ultimate quandary: Is it really you? Is there a metaphysical element to human life that goes beyond a complex series of input and output algorithms? If not, then the notion of religion will die out, and if that happens, who will save the south?