The two blogospheres

Some of you may remember a David Brooks article recently in which he argued, against the book Republic.com, by Cass Sunstein, that the Internet may be a vehicle for promoting democratic discourse after all. (I think I griped about his misreading of Sunstein, whose own view is contained in the first chapter title to that volume, "The Daily Me" -- instead of "The Daily We" which is cited by Brooks.

In any event, you will likely find this study of the Internet habits of Lefties and Righties to be of interest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/new-study-liberals-more-o_b_555000.html

Well, what now?

Capstone10 is basically over -- though I'm not finished appending comments to the Q study papers yet -- and I thought about closing down Obamadogs for another year. But what would I vent my spleen on with regard to the bizarre political "reality" we find ourselves in? I could continue to write the White House (and I will) and I could continue to fire off comments on the NY Times columnists. (I probably will, but I'm still ticked because my comment on David Brooks' piece today, "Riders of the Storm," where he claims the internet does not contribute to our polarized political discourse did not get published. I'm ticked because Brooks started his essay with a thought that was ascribed to Cass Sunstein, ex-husband of Martha Nusbaum (our convo lady last fall) and now an employee in the Obama White House. The piece, "The Daily We" that was attributed to Sunstein, and became the root of his argument that the Internet is indeed a pro-democratic force is actually a chapter in Sunstein's book on the internet, Republic.com; except the title is "The Daily Me," not we, and the point is that we can and do customize our access to "news" and "politics" so as not to have to engage in genuine dialogue across points of view. In other words, Sunstein was arguing exactly the opposite of what he was be cited to support by Brooks.

The Times will have to print a retraction tomorrow, but it will appear in a small-print part of the hardcopy and most will not notice it. But this ticks me off in the same way my comment about Zirra's entry on Avatar and my position on Factor 3 made me aware of. Brooks is a highly paid, well-regard journalist, conservative or not, and such an error should not pass a good copy editor. There are lots of thoughtful commentaries on our public life that don't match the market value of a NY Times columnist. Hence my irritation that, once again, there's such a disparity between real value and the market's version.

That said, I'll be leaving Obamadogs open for all you folks who'll be moving on to solve other problems and endure other challenges (and a jerk or two as well) en route to the completion of the credential thing. You have a right to feel pretty good about your Capstone class: thanks to Justin's initiative, we read a good and timely book that will not lose its value -- market or otherwise -- as the world moves to address the ills Friedman charts. You upheld obligations for doing work worthy of a senior seminar at this college without the onerous incentive or threat of the grade. That's an important lesson in itself: we have our individual standards, and we have our commitments to adhere to group standards, self-imposed as well. The Q studies were quite impressive for first-time ventures, pilot studies, to be unertaken with minimal time, no resources to pay for the dirt work of research -- data collection and the like -- and they all dealt with important aspects of the human experience. And each has possibilities for further "refinement" in pushing the envelope on what we know about phenomena that, frankly, we don't know that much about.

So congrats to all. You've on the brink of achieving an important marker in your formal educations. But whether the formal journey continues or not, perhaps the most overlooked achievement is that you've come along way down the road of learning, far enough to realize that the formal stuff is only a start, really. The informal will, God willing, never grow old; and no matter how specialized your personal inquiries might take you, may the excitement of discovery continue to be enhanced by sharing it.

Cheers,
DT

We Are All Avatars!

What makes good entertainment? If it was easy to know, then I would be… Well, the fact is, it’s not easy to know. But, if anyone would know, it would be James Cameron. The chap directed two consecutive films that made both film-making and financial history worldwide. Worldwide. I’ve heard that music transcends culture, but the reception of film is based, largely on the cultural context for entertainment. I saw the film in the U.A. E. and it wasn’t opening night, but the theatres were packed! The Emirati who didn’t speak English had to read the subtitles in Arabic at the bottom of the screen, which, in my opinion limited their experience. But, Avatar broke records in the United Arab Emirates, and in other non-Western countries like Bahrain, Qatar, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Latvia, and the list goes on…

I didn’t come early, but there were only a few seats remaining in the front row. It was the first time I was seeing a film in 3-D. Throughout the movie, was fascinated by the visuals and I couldn’t believe how time passed y so fast. After it was all over, my sister said it was the best film she’d ever seen, but all I could think was that I’d seen—or at least read about this in real life—I mean, it drew almost practical parallelisms to colonialism, with a slightly better ending.

I read that 20th Century Fox (South) Korea modified and released Avatar in 4-D version. Their version included "moving seats, smells of explosives, sprinkling water, laser lights and wind." It would have been interesting to study the cross-cultural reception to the film. Cameron has confirmed that a sequel of one or two parts will follow Avatar. It took over ten years to develop the technology for Cameron’s vision (the script was actually written since 1994), and I hope the next one or ones, if anything, will live up to their predecessor. It would be sad to see an excellent filmmaker put out rubbish only because of the reception to the first one... but then again, it's Cameron.

Anyway, considering how our class received the movie, I wanted to let the class know about their response to the film. Names weren’t included in my paper, so I’ll simply let everyone know what audience they fell into, if they care to know.

Factor 1- “Film made me reflect on life” Abhay, Benson, Morgan (PS 101), and 2 unidentified females. Led by: Unidentified Female & Benson.

Factor 2- “Eye candy” Justin, Abi, Sondra (PS 101).Led by: Abi

Factor 3- “Only good part is 3-D imaging” D.T, Joe & unidentified male. Led by: D.T

Now, if you’re going to see the sequel to Avatar, you know who to go with J

P.S: I had fun doing this. Thanks, D.T!

Cartoon on American cars

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944480,00.html

I think this is a funny, yet somewhat real depiction of the American attitude toward personal vehicles of transportation known as cars. I do not think many people want to squeeze into a European, sissy, tiny, fuel efficient car when you can have a spacious SUV. I say: carbon tax !

What’s the Matter in the Middle East?

Believe it or not, there’s a logical explanation to everything. Including the middle-east crisis.

If we weren’t in a global recession—or just coming out of it—the crisis in the Middle East might have been the second Cold War with different actors.

If the world could afford another war, we would have been in it right now.

In Akbar Ahmed’s Journey into Islam, the former high commissioner of Pakistan to Israel unveils the fundamental misunderstandings and discrepancies between Western and Middle Eastern viewpoints. With two of his students from the American University, Washington D.C., Ahmed surveys the Islamic region from Turkey to Indonesia. Their travels take them to Turkey, Qatar, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Each voyage is woven into a systematically logical message that urges both the Western and Middle Eastern worlds to learn more about each other.

The book is an anthropological study, a cultural expedition and a series of religious dialogues. The dialogues are facilitated by the western travelers: Ahmed himself, two non-Muslim undergraduate students—one male and the other female—and a female Arab-American research assistant from the US.

A common theme that is highlighted throughout the book is “the clash of civilizations,” as put forth by Samuel P. Huntington. Ahmed recognizes the strained discrepancies between Islamic and Western ideologies but for the most part, maintains an optimistic front. His ideas ooze a desperate plea to consolidate these differences, and with good reason, as he is a westerner of the Islamic world. Gone are the days that the West could live on its own political and economic space. Globalization now means that America will have to work with the Arabs, Persians and Indians.

The mission of the four takes them deep into the minds of Muslims in the Middle East: they sit and talk with any person that will bother to discuss with them. The coolest part of the dialogue is not only that the American undergraduates get to comprehend and appreciate the stances of the Muslims, but also that Middle Eastern Muslims also get to empathize with the Americans. It is beautiful that in the end, no “good” or “bad” side emerges, that labels either the West or the Middle East as the victor of moral principles.

Staying true to his diplomatic profession, Akbar Ahmed skillfully takes his reader on a “Journey Into Islam” and accompanies the reader through mosques, madrassahs, and shrines in the Islamic world to decide for themselves what needs to be done to narrow the rift between the West and the Middle east, as there is no doubt that a rift exists between both regions. As a thorough anthropologist, Ahmed provides political context for his arguments—there is a logical explanation to what people do.

Perhaps due to the basis and aim of the book, one major flaw exists—the book was simply written for the west. What pre-set notions existed before Ahmed set pen to paper in an attempt to unveil Islam in the Middle East? Nonetheless, the author address this in the sequel to the book, which will be titled “Journey into America.”

Palestine (esp for fellow History of US Foreign Relations students)

In case Tuesday night's class had anyone else feeling a little depressed about peace prospects in the Middle East:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07westbank.html?src=me&ref=homepage

not earth-shattering by any means, but maybe non-violence is the way to go?

DT's comments on Brooks's column on fiscal policy

Dan ThomasCedar Falls, IowaApril 2nd, 20107:53 amThis is one of those essays, Mr. Brooks, that addresses a vitally important issue and mucks it up, big time. The obfuscation begins with the mocking-nature of the title, continues through the mischaracterization of the root of the problem, and culminates with the all-too-common descrediting of a solution that would hurt the folks who have benefited most unfairly from the fiscal mess that is laid at the feet of over-spending Democrats that want to give the store away to the undeserving.

To be sure, a government running fiscal policies like ours in 1960 would have been voted out on their ear in short order. But the fiscal policy it 1961 had a revenue source in an income tax code that had upper brackets for the super rich that vanished in the 1980s.

Now we have a "political class" that is as polarized as are "the voters" despite your stylistic tendency to ascribe uniform motives and miscues to both as if politics in fiscal policy, like Obama's dreams of bipartisanship, was impertinent. If the overplayed animosity of the tea-baggers at the spending side of HCR is in big part due to Republican distortions about the nature of this reform and the costs it imposes on average taxpayers -- and the so-called tea-baggers themselves are as much an artifact of Dick Armey's Freedom Works and the Sarah Palin media show -- it's fair to ask why the other side of the fiscal equation's imbalance has failed to turn out the protestors egged on by the likes of Steve King on the portico of the Capitol.

The beneficiaries, like Mr. Armey who's cashed in his government service days, as a well-paid lobbyist, of the post-Reagan and post- Bradley-Gephardt Tax Reform Act have been understandably reluctant to frame their complaints with the fiscal problem on the revenue side. It's always a lament of the need to cut spending when they know full well that, unless they're serious about gutting the popular entitlement programs or taking on the defense budget, where we spend more than a dollar of every two spent globally each year -- the root of TEA in their lexicon (Taxed Enough Already) -- the answer is on the revenue side. Like we might have with health care, there's not only much to be learned on this side of the policy challenge from our overseas advanced democratic cohorts; there's as much to be learned from our own history.

It wasn't that long ago, that the "tax expenditures" so decried by the likes of Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, and the current crop of Congressional Republicans would have been treated by the press, a half of the "political class," and a fair portion of the "voters" as bearing as much responsibility for the obscene deficits facing future generations as the projected increases in payroll taxes that wealthier taxpayers will foot to augment the bigger pool of premiums to pay for the health reform start. But why no complaints in the pundit class or in the astro-turfed popular rebellion over the big government takeover at the free-loading class that received a collective benefit of over $150 billion annually in "tax expenditures" under the Bush tax cuts -- and still do?

Until this side of the equation in our fiscal crisis is addressed honestly -- minus the imaginary "ecstacy" of such problem-solving -- folks like the derivative trader that boasted of a $4 billion profit last year will persist in gaming the system where the so-called "political class" closes its collective eyes to the fact that they, in the cold reality of our fiscal mess, are the real "free loaders" under the alleged expansion of big government at the federal level.