Thursday, December 11, 2003

Having found an error in a Chicago Tribune article, I wrote the author and kindly told him he had made a mistake. No correction, and quite frankly, I think one is called for.
The Tribune was writing an article on the Democratic Senatorial Primary for Illinois' junior seat. At the end of the article, the reporter, a Mr. David Mendell, threw in a line about 3 other candidates, chosen to catch the eye. One, and the one that really did catch my eye was Downstate coal miner Vic Roberts. So I do a quick google search, first thing that pops up is Vic Roberts' Senatorial website where he announces with red font at the top of the page that his candidacy ended 2 weeks ago.
Now, that took all of 15 seconds, tops. Why is the Tribune incapable of engaging in that minimal level of fact-checking? It's all the more mind-boggling considering the plagarism incident of about two weeks ago when the Tribune foolishly published an excerpt from a popular book, signed by someone who had nothing to do with the book. Classic reporting. Let's get a story out, forget about the facts, forget about the effect errors and lies have on the public and the role that reporting is meant to have in this society and let's just pretend like we're above it all.
It's a shame the public doesn't have the ability to compel the media to hold itself to higher standards. The United States allows media a greater legal protection because it is meant to provide citizens with the information they need to be productive, coherent and relevant players in a representative democracy. With spotty efforts at reporting and a greater interest in getting a good turn of phrase than the correct information, it is time for oversight of media and a repeal of its privileged status.
Until the media can prove that it fulfills its social purpose, it should no longer reap the benefits of special Constitutional protection.

Friday, May 16, 2003

Regarding this drama in the Chicago suburbs (seniors being expelled for some sort of "hazing" incident), I'm struck by the sheer vitriol of social reaction. I think the anger that the general public and the faculty at the school are expressing has more to do with personal insecurity and a vindictive nature than a desire to help society function in the best way possible.
To punish the students and seek to teach a lesson, not a bad idea. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for the school to be involved as the actions had nothing whatsoever to do with the school and I would leave it up to the individuals assaulted to press charges. By allowing the school control over the lives of students outside the classroom -given the ability the school has to uphold rules and regulations that are more repressive than those in society at large- we encourage the notion that law is not the final arbiter of action. We teach our children that even though they technically obeyed the rules, these rules are not actually applicable. In effect, we teach our children that the institutions that govern them lie. We teach them that the institutions they are meant to respect change rules to their own advantage. We teach our children that it is not possible to be safe without adhering to a majority social view, regardless of the protections the law provides.
We have to answer the question of whether we are serious about allowing minorities to speak their mind and behave as they see fit. If so, the most critical thing we can do is stick to the laws. Once we override the laws, no matter under what provision, we make clear that it is majority rule and not respect for all people that is important. If we don't agree with your view, we'll shoot you down. And then we sit and wonder why young adults aren't interested in politics and don't have respect for adults and the legal system. Meanwhile, we all know that to get respect you have to give it, and that if you fail just one time to show respect it is as though you never showed any at all.
Today's "Moscow Times" offers up an interesting story addressing the conflict of religion and civil society. Top Court Gives OK to Scarves
The argument of the state is eminently logical, proposing simply that the purpose of an identification card is to identify an individual. Human beings identify other human beings primarily on the basis of facial features - it is in fact how we are hard-wired to identify - which is precisely why identification cards carry a facial photo most prominently. Other characteristics may be listed, but the key point of the thing is the face. Thus, identification cards in which an individual's face is partially or entirely covered negate the purpose of the identity card and are the equivalent of dodging the law- as when vehicle license plates are covered in such a way as to prevent their being read. As far as the state is concerned, once the ability to identify the item in question is undermined by an action on the part of an individual, that individual is acting against the law.
Countering that is the religion issue. If a religion, allowed by the state to hold exceptional importance in the life of an individual, requires a certain action, the state should really only block that action in extreme circumstance where there is obvious social damage. Religion is probably given more leeway in civil society than it deserves for two reasons : one, because of the historical remnants of power it held over the people, often acting as the state and two, because of the sympathetic benefits the state tends to accrue from active religions. In America, for example, the vast majority of the population is of a Christian persuasion. Since Christian morals as broadly-defined match rather well with American law, the church and its ideals are not attacked. It isn't so much a show of religious tolerance as a pragmatic decision to rule with the majority.
The issue with the scarves in Russia, as the article notes in its last line, is a problem of the minority. Regardless of actual figures, the governments in question are defined by the west as secular. With important religious populations, these governments are forced to take a particularly exacting attitude towards implementation of laws. Russia's problem began with the annexation of religiously defined territories far-distant from Russia's base of operation.
Two questions are worth asking - whether secular simply means Christian and whether it is possible to run a government on the basis of a religious system to which its people do not necessarily subscribe. An important point of study there would be the fall of religion in the west. There may be an interesting link between civil strife, public involvement in the government and governing decisions and the public's impression of government's role in their lives.

Thursday, May 15, 2003

How to Spend it works on the distinctly British (or at least specifically not early 21st century American) virtue of conspicuous consumption to the point of garishness. The May 2003 cover is a perfect case in point - the background is a muted gray, the focal piece an ivory marble statue of a woman, covering half her chest with a toga pulled above one breast, leaning slightly inwards, glancing over her shoulder, face shaded leaving only a profile, trying to protect modesty and perhaps escape. Across her arm, through the virtue of modern technology, has been draped the latest Bottega Veneta style breakthrough, the classic bag. The tag line on the cover states, "I'd Feel Naked Without It" : The Return of the Classic Bag."
Right. So you see their point. Classic is classic, it's the essence of style, dress, and individuality as so expressed. But there is no question that the delivery is crass. The woman is wearing nothing but a sheet, poorly covering her body and her body language indicates fear and danger. Her fear of being naked is not the abstract notion of being incompletely dressed, or inappropriately dressed for a social function- it is a literal fear of nakedness and the vulnerability it causes. Someone with too strong a sense of irony decided to mock her vulnerability and make it a triumph for the insouciance of the monied-classes. And that sums up the on-message FT Supplement.
The Weekend FT has the world's best supplement : How to Spend it