Old People

Found this song, well searched for it, actually, after Peggy Noonan mentioned it in the book I'm reading. I hadn't heard of it before. She referred to Bette Midler's version, so I searched for that, listened, cried, but then I wondered who wrote the song (John Prine) and found a video of him performing. Posting them both here. 

"Hello in There" 


Ow. 

Here's the songwriter's version. 

The Internet Knows

I've been reading Clay Johnson's book, The Information Diet, and also listening to what Eli Pariser has to say (he wrote The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You, which I haven't read yet). I think Johnson got some of his ideas for his book from Pariser, but no matter. They're both making the same points, which has to do with how the Internet (Google, Yahoo! News, Facebook, are mentioned specifically) use sophisticated algorithms to basically give users the information they want (or what the Internet thinks they want) based on their browsing history.

So many unclear pronouns in that paragraph. Sorry.

The point these two men and others are making is that the Internet is, if not creating, then it's perpetuating the polarization that exists in society. The phrase I'm hearing is confirmation bias, which is "the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions" (I got this definition from Science Daily). What's going on is the Internet somehow keeps track of our online activity, our "clicks"--articles we read online, links we follow, websites we visit, articles or sites we "like" on Facebook, etc.--and then, when we search for information in a search engine like Google, the top results conform to the kinds of links we've clicked on before. To illustrate this, Pariser asked two friends to Google the word "Egypt" and then show him the search results. One friend's results were all about the political uprising in Egypt while the other friend's results had to do with pyramids and traveling to Egypt. Same search term, two different users, completely different results.

Pariser calls this trend "concerning" since it appears what's going on is when we search for information on the Internet, we're not getting what's true or current or relevant about something but rather what conforms to what we want to be true about something. Confirmation bias. 

Certainly, we can take control of our searches. There are strategies for forming queries that filter out some aspects and include another. And yes, those are the strategies I teach in my English 100 classes. But not everyone has the time, interest, inclination, or patience, let alone the cognizance to either recognize or appreciate the need for such deliberate use of the Internet. The very fact that we're searching the Internet for something suggests that we're in a hurry. The analogy to fast food that Clay Johnson uses in his book is apt: a quick burger satisfies the empty belly much the way a random Google search satisfies the unfocused mind. 

For the record, both Pariser and Johnson are lefties. Pariser founded MoveOn.org and Johnson started Blue State Digital. But I like them anyway! They both seem to appreciate and even respect the notion that there's more than one way to view the world. After he left MoveOn.org, Pariser went out of his way to befriend conservatives so he could hear what they had to say (he has an interesting story about how Facebook "hid" his conservative friends from his newsfeeds). 

Contrast this with most people on the left who not only don't befriend conservatives let alone listen to their viewpoints (test it: ask your favorite lefty which conservative author he listens to or reads--I'm willing to bet they have no answer), but actually dismiss conservatives altogether. Some even go so far as to label conservatives dangerous and their views taboo (that's the latest from Al Gore regarding people who challenge the idea that human behavior is responsible for global warming). And the current drama in Washington, D.C. over the president's flawed health care law has Democrats calling Republicans terrorists and anarchists. The president's own spokesman told Jake Tapper on CNN News that they won't talk with people who have bombs strapped to their chests. So much for actually listening to the other side.

Anyway, here's a 15-minute interview with Pariser. I'll add his book to my list of things to read next.

"I Need Thee Every Hour"

Lovely hymn, lovely voice, crazy talented kid.

Insufferable Facebook-isms

I'm tempted to post this article (linked below) called "7 Ways to be Insufferable On Facebook" on my Facebook page. However, if I did, I suspect that might make me insufferable. 

Here's a snippet.

A Facebook status is annoying if it primarily serves the author and does nothing positive for anyone reading it . . . To examine this a bit, let’s start by discussing the defining characteristics of statuses that are not annoying.

To be unannoying, a Facebook status typically has to be one of two things:

1) Interesting/Informative
2) Funny/Amusing/Entertaining 

You know why these are unannoying? Because things in those two categories do something for me, the reader. They make my day a little better.

Ideally, interesting statuses would be fascinating and original (or a link to something that is), and funny ones would be hilarious. But I’ll happily take mildly amusing—at least we're still dealing with the good guys.

On the other hand, annoying statuses typically reek of one or more of these five motivations:

1) Image Crafting. The author wants to affect the way people think of her.

2) Narcissism. The author’s thoughts, opinions, and life philosophies matter. The author and the author’s life are interesting in and of themselves.

3) Attention Craving. The author wants attention.

4) Jealousy Inducing. The author wants to make people jealous of him or his life.

5) Loneliness. The author is feeling lonely and wants Facebook to make it better. This is the least heinous of the five—but seeing a lonely person acting lonely on Facebook makes me and everyone else sad. So the person is essentially spreading their sadness, and that’s a shitty thing to do, so it’s on the list.

The author then provides examples of insufferability, nearly all of them falling under the general heading of "image crafting." Rather hilarious, not to mention embarrassing. I wonder how often I've been insufferable. I think I was pretty insufferable during the 2008 election of he-who-shall-not-be-named.

The scary thing is, if the entire concept of social networking is designed to promote, propagate and perpetuate narcissistic behavior, why do I continue to skulk about in this community? Yet when I think of closing up my account once and for all, I wonder what I'll miss out on. And so I linger.  

Anyway, here's the article. Very funny. Not sure who the author is, but it's from a blog called wait but why. 

"7 Ways to be Insufferable on Facebook"

Prager U: "Why America Invaded Iraq"

I'm posting this 5-minute video, "Why America Invaded Iraq," presented by British historian Andrew Roberts (bio here). 

People who are still convinced of the "Bush lied/people died" meme will find something to criticize about his analysis, but I'm of the opinion that there was both logic and sound analysis behind the decision to go to war.

This brief presentation addresses the argument that Saddam Hussein presented a huge obstacle to peace in the Middle East, that the goal of removing him in order to allow a "functioning democracy" a chance to spread in the region made sense, especially since Hussein refused to comply with U.N resolutions, dismissed U.N weapons' inspectors, had a history of using poison gas during the Iran/Iraq war, and refused to back down, even after having seen his military defeated in 1999 when he invaded Kuwait.

Even the argument about Bush being wrong that Hussein had WMD's falters when examining the facts known at the time about Hussein. Not only did Hussein have a history of using these weapons, he tried to convince the world that he would use them. Bluffs like this (assuming it was a bluff) cannot be ignored. Bush was not alone in taking him seriously. The decision to go to war came with the agreement of our allies, and members of Congress, including key Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and others.

 

Source: Prager University

Back to the present. It's fascinating to see John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, etc. arguing in favor of bombing Syria and punishing Bashar al-Assad for using poison gas. Putting aside the question of whether or not this is a good idea, I can't help but wonder if at least some of the WMD's being employed by al-Assad were at one time used by Saddam Hussein. 

During the heated debate over whether or not Hussein actually had WMD's, culminating in the conclusion that he did not, I recall some mention of whether it was possible that he had possibly smuggled the weapons out of the country during the time weapons' inspectors were evicted. Where might the weapons have been concealed? None other than Syria. 

Here we are, a decade later, watching Barack Obama (he of the Bush lied ilk) being forced to make the hard decisions that his predecessor confronted. How ironic would it be if the very weapons al-Assad is using today are the very ones that Hussein used during his reign?