Curmudgeons of the World, Unite!

February 19, 2008

     I am reprinting below a New York Times book review about a book by fellow curmudgeon,  Susan Jacoby, about the current dumbing down of America, and the failure of the public educational system. While I am not in agreement with Ms Jacoby on every point she makes, I am in general agreement with her on the state of American Education and the effect of the internet on the values and knowledge of our young. (Disclaimer: At this point, I have only read the book review, not the book.  I am presently considering buying the book.)

     As one who, himself spends probably eight hours per day on  the internet (logged in, that is, not necessarily using the internet) I probably should be the last person to condemn the internet. It is an extremely valuable tool, and I use it in my business to communicate with clients, to look up things, and to get information on recent changes in the law.  I used to do all of these things with hard copy, but it is certainly much more efficient to do it with the internet.

      I also use the internet recreationally occasionally. My finding of this book review was one example. Also, I like to post on political blogs, and I particularly like to get into arguments on these blogs. Even so, my recreational use of the internet is but a fraction of the total time per day I am on-line.

     Thus, I feel I am justified in taking this position, since I do not now, and never have condemned the Internet as a totally useless, or even mostly useless. I think for the majority of people, the internet is an appropriate tool for business  and most people’s recreational use of it is not excessive. However, there remains that minority, who, it seems, do everything in excess. Hence our national problem with anti-intellectualism, drugs and the net.

     Here is the article reviewing Ms Jacoby’s book:

By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: February 14, 2008
A popular video on YouTube shows Kellie Pickler, the adorable platinum blonde from “American Idol,” appearing on the Fox game show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” during celebrity week. Selected from a third-grade geography curriculum, the $25,000 question asked: “Budapest is the capital of what European country?”

Skip to next paragraph

Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

Susan Jacoby, author of “The Age of American Unreason.”

Ms. Pickler threw up both hands and looked at the large blackboard perplexed. “I thought Europe was a country,” she said. Playing it safe, she chose to copy the answer offered by one of the genuine fifth graders: Hungary. “Hungry?” she said, eyes widening in disbelief. “That’s a country? I’ve heard of Turkey. But Hungry? I’ve never heard of it.”

Such, uh, lack of global awareness is the kind of thing that drives Susan Jacoby, author of “The Age of American Unreason,” up a wall. Ms. Jacoby is one of a number of writers with new books that bemoan the state of American culture.

Joining the circle of curmudgeons this season is Eric G. Wilson, whose “Against Happiness” warns that the “American obsession with happiness” could “well lead to a sudden extinction of the creative impulse, that could result in an extermination as horrible as those foreshadowed by global warming and environmental crisis and nuclear proliferation.”

Then there is Lee Siegel’s “Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob,” which inveighs against the Internet for encouraging solipsism, debased discourse and arrant commercialization. Mr. Siegel, one might remember, was suspended by The New Republic for using a fake online persona in order to trash critics of his blog (“you couldn’t tie Siegel’s shoelaces”) and to praise himself (“brave, brilliant”).

Ms. Jacoby, whose book came out on Tuesday, doesn’t zero in on a particular technology or emotion, but rather on what she feels is a generalized hostility to knowledge. She is well aware that some may tag her a crank. “I expect to get bashed,” said Ms. Jacoby, 62, either as an older person who upbraids the young for plummeting standards and values, or as a secularist whose defense of scientific rationalism is a way to disparage religion.

Ms. Jacoby, however, is quick to point out that her indictment is not limited by age or ideology. Yes, she knows that eggheads, nerds, bookworms, longhairs, pointy heads, highbrows and know-it-alls have been mocked and dismissed throughout American history. And liberal and conservative writers, from Richard Hofstadter to Allan Bloom, have regularly analyzed the phenomenon and offered advice.

T. J. Jackson Lears, a cultural historian who edits the quarterly review Raritan, said, “The tendency to this sort of lamentation is perennial in American history,” adding that in periods “when political problems seem intractable or somehow frozen, there is a turn toward cultural issues.”

But now, Ms. Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that “too much learning can be a dangerous thing”) and anti-rationalism (“the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion”) have fused in a particularly insidious way.

Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don’t think it matters.

She pointed to a 2006 National Geographic poll that found nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds don’t think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. So more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.

Ms. Jacoby, dressed in a bright red turtleneck with lipstick to match, was sitting, appropriately, in that temple of knowledge, the New York Public Library’s majestic Beaux Arts building on Fifth Avenue. The author of seven other books, she was a fellow at the library when she first got the idea for this book back in 2001, on 9/11.

Walking home to her Upper East Side apartment, she said, overwhelmed and confused, she stopped at a bar. As she sipped her bloody mary, she quietly listened to two men, neatly dressed in suits. For a second she thought they were going to compare that day’s horrifying attack to the Japanese bombing in 1941 that blew America into World War II:

“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.

The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”

“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied.

At that moment, Ms. Jacoby said, “I decided to write this book.”

Ms. Jacoby doesn’t expect to revolutionize the nation’s educational system or cause millions of Americans to switch off “American Idol” and pick up Schopenhauer. But she would like to start a conversation about why the United States seems particularly vulnerable to such a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism. After all, “the empire of infotainment doesn’t stop at the American border,” she said, yet students in many other countries consistently outperform American students in science, math and reading on comparative tests.

In part, she lays the blame on a failing educational system. “Although people are going to school more and more years, there’s no evidence that they know more,” she said.

Ms. Jacoby also blames religious fundamentalism’s antipathy toward science, as she grieves over surveys that show that nearly two-thirds of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution.

Ms. Jacoby doesn’t leave liberals out of her analysis, mentioning the New Left’s attacks on universities in the 1960s, the decision to consign African-American and women’s studies to an “academic ghetto” instead of integrating them into the core curriculum, ponderous musings on rock music and pop culture courses on everything from sitcoms to fat that trivialize college-level learning.

Avoiding the liberal or conservative label in this particular argument, she prefers to call herself a “cultural conservationist.”

For all her scholarly interests, though, Ms. Jacoby said she recognized just how hard it is to tune out the 24/7 entertainment culture. A few years ago she participated in the annual campaign to turn off the television for a week. “I was stunned at how difficult it was for me,” she said.

The surprise at her own dependency on electronic and visual media made her realize just how pervasive the culture of distraction is and how susceptible everyone is — even curmudgeons.

Everything is a Story

February 17, 2008

Okay, Steve Ersinghaus, we gotta talk.

You said two things last Thursday that reminded me that I am from another planet. A pre-postmodern planet.

You certainly reminded me that we are in a postmodern world.

What a crazy term “postmodern” is. All my life, “modern” was a term for new, exciting, different. Suddenly, that is all passe, and now everything new, exciting and different is “postmodern.”

But it is real. I pinch myself but I am already awake. Everything is a story in this postmodern world. Rhetoric is dead. Logic is dead. Whoever tells the best story, wins.

And the second thing you said that is ever so postmodern: “There is no such thing as right or wrong.”

Oh my God, if that were true, how could my uncle who was a marine on Okanawa do what he did. He was a Lance Corporal when the battle started. He was commander of his company, what was left of it, when the battle ended.  All the officers and noncoms had been killed. Who knows how many people my uncle killed or saw die.

Was all of that a waste? Was there really no right or wrong, and it didn’t make any difference who won?

If there was no right or wrong, then what the Hell was he doing there?

What rough beast, its hour come round at last, has convinced the world that there is no right or wrong? Why in this generation has reason given way to storytelling. Is it just too hard to think, or does the entire world have ADHD?

There is right and there is wrong. Absolute right and absolute wrong. I certainly have no confusion on that score. And the storytelling has got to end. We have to get back to hard core thinking. America, as I have said before, is going to Hell on a bobsled.

All the great civilizations of the past have ended, and I suppose America will be no exception. Rome must have been like this at the end, orgies, slaves to do all the work (for us, computers), and morality disintegrating. I look around me and I see Rome everywhere.

There is such a thing as right and wrong, damn it! Ethics are not culturally relative. There is a right way and a wrong way. There is a good and a bad. There are things worth dying for.

But if everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, how do you tell? Was the Mayan practice of human sacrifice justified because it was right in that culture, or were the Mayans just a bunch of savages? Was Hitler just doing what he thought was right? Was Charles Manson just misunderstood?

Postmodernism has brought with it some good things. But it has also pulled us further from our roots than we can afford to be. If only we could take the good without the bad. Why does it seem to be the human condition that everything has a dark side? 

If we are evolving, then what are we evolving into? 

USA Today – Real vs Virtual

February 12, 2008

Okay, this is exactly the first time in my life I have bought USA Today, the Newspaper. There are about 100 newspapers I would have preferred, but an assigment is an assignment.

I logged on to USA today the virutal newspaper early this morning, while waiting for it to get light so I could go shovel snow. I recall the headlines were about the Grammies, which interest me not at all. Eventually, I shovelled snow and went to work. On the way home I bought a USA Today. To my shock and surprise, the headlines on the hard copy USA Today were about the “Potomac Primary” and the Mexican economy, subjects far more interesting to me than the Grammies. But then, further shock, when I re-logged on the the USA Today website, the virtual headlines had changed to a Chinese spy case, a Zurich art robbery, and a Blackberry outage.

All the versions of USA Today that I checked had the date February 11, today’s date. Yet over the course of about 12 hours, all were different in content. I have no idea how many times the virtual newspaper changed in this time period.

Obviously, the paper edition of USA today that I had was fixed and would not change. There was still a Grammy article on the front page, but it was not the major item.  The Democratic Primary and the Mexican Economy were. At some point during the day, those two headlines were eclipsed by the Chinese spies and Zurich and the Blackberry outage.

Point to take away, I guess is that with on line papers, at least big ones like USA today  news is fungible. My guess is that people who like this newspaper can keep going back to it all day and getting new news.  Perhaps they even keep track of the number of hits and count them and put the most popular articles up front. Just speculation. That is what I would do.

Another thing I noticed was that on virtually every page of the virtual newspaper there were ads. I didn’t see a single ad on the hard copy until Page 5A which was all one big ad. And of course some of the virtual ads were interactive.

I clicked on some stories and was sent to other virtual pages which had more ads and referred the reader to even more stories. The virtual paper never seemed to end. The actual paper, was obviously quite finite.

Which did I like better? Sorry guys, but I like reading hard copy. Habit I guess. It’s why I still buy books even when I can read them free on line. There is something about holding what you are reading. It’s also why I buy CDs and do not own an IPod. I have a nice stereo system, however, which fills the living room with sound. Somehow, that seems more real to me than an IPod.

I am unquestionably from another generation.

So sue me. 

Obama Girl and Hillary

February 10, 2008

Politics has been reshaped by New Media. Sites like UTube present ways to “get the message out” that didn’t exist even ten years ago. In a way this media is reshaping democracy.

The best and most publicized use of new media in the current campaign has been by Obama Supporters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Obama Girl is heavy on gyrations and sex appeal, but light on message. This was the award winning political video of 2007. Can you come away from this with one thing Obama stands for? I couldn’t. But if that Babe likes Obama, he must be pretty good, right?

Well, apparently, not good enough to motivate her to actually vote. In the recent New York Primary, Obama Girl didn’t vote.

Then there’s Hillary. For her, Obama Girl is a tough act to follow. Thank you, but I don’t think I’d want to see Hillary in a bikini doing a pole dance. Nor would I like to see her number one supporter, Bill, in a bikini either. Maybe some old footage of him dancing with Monica Lewinsky.

Hillary’s seminal contribution so far seems to be a number of bland ads like the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzBvQ9EeF3k&feature=related

Now there is plenty of message here, but zero sex appeal. Hillary wants to give tons of money to every liberal cause that ever existed. She wants universal Pre-K for example, which won’t do much for kids, but will certainly help the teachers’ union. She wants universal health care, which she tried to ram through when Bubba was in the Oval Office, but failed miserably. Thankfully, I doubt there is any chance that she would be more successful as president. But she sure can make promises. And quite possibly, she is sincere, which in my mind makes her dangerous.

Okay, so the cat is out of the bag. I am not a liberal. Big Surprise. I homeschool and think the public school system should be dismantled. I have lived in countries with Universal Health Care. Be careful what you ask for. Yes, I am voting for McCain.

But back to the main point of this. You have here two examples of polar extremes in political advertising on the internet. In one case, you have a lot of eye candy, but no substance, and in the other you have a lot of substance but no eye candy. Which ad, or which approach is more effective?

I guess the answer depends upon your target audience. The Obama ad clearly targets people who don’t want to think too much, and the Clinton ad targets traditional liberals. From my point of view, neither ad targets people who wouldn’t vote for one of these two candidates anyway. Certainly, I suppose, the Democratic Primary is not interested in targeting Christian Conservatives, Social Conservatives, People who are pro Iraq, homeschoolers, or people with traditional values. These ads are targeting the young and unsophisticated, as well as those with liberal agendas.

Assuming one of these two candidates wins, it will be intersting to see whether they can take new media advertising to the next level, i.e., whether they can come up with somethng that will appeal to Americans in general.  Considering the Democrat’s track record in general presidential elections, I do think that would be unlikely. 

Video Game Violence

February 9, 2008

Judging by the reaction of my son, this is a sensitive topic among gamers. When I pointed out a new article on this subject, which I have reprinted below, he became very defensive, saying that anything can be abused, drugs, cars, etc. Of course, I admitted, drugs save lives, and abused, drugs take lives. And not everyone I know who plays video games has become a serial killer.

Like anything else, new media has its dark side. Whenever humans are involved, any good thing will likely be perverted and abused. Nonetheless this study, referred to below, is frightening. Similar studies have been done with violent movies with similar results. I guess what is really so scary is how easily human behavior can be influenced by the the environment. When the environment contains violence, even virtual violence, it seems humans tend to be more accepting of that violence. Perhaps this is an evolutionary trait that promotes adaptation to one’s environment. From the point of view of evolution, I suppose it is good that an organism adapts to its environment. However, the difference between humans now and humans ten thousand years ago, is that today we have a lot more control over our environment. For a great number of us, we can choose to bring or not bring violence (at least in video form) into our lives.

I guess the real question is, is it consistant with high morality to knowingly bring violence into our lives? Are video games in some way preparing us for the next phase of our evolution? Or are they shaping the direction in which our evolution will go?

OMAHA, Neb. — Playing video games increases aggression in some children and young adults and normalizes killing, some doctors said.

Research suggests that violent video games can make children feel different. A brain scan of a teenager who has just played what was deemed a nonviolent video game was compared to the scan of a teen who had just spent 30 minutes playing a violent game. Indiana School of Medicine researchers said highlighted areas in the brains showed increased activity in the areas involved in emotional arousal.

“Exposure to violent video games, even E rated video games, increases aggressive thoughts, increases pro-social behavior and increases general arousal,” said Dr. Greg Snyder, a psychologist at Omaha’s Children’s Hospital

Snyder said exposure to violence in video games can desensitize a teen to the real thing.

Research from Iowa State University, Kansas State University and the National Institutes of Health reached similar conclusions. Compared to teens who played nonviolent games, those who played violent games had a lower heart rate and lower galvanic skin response when they were exposed to videos of real violence, the studies showed.

“The more normal it is, the more likely it is they’re going to activate or engage in those behaviors when provoked or even unprovoked,” Snyder said.

Tyler White, 17, said he has been playing video games as long as he can remember. He and his friend, Erik Grove, 16, play a game called “Gears of War.” Both boys said they enjoy shooting games.

“With a shooting game, you can’t actually go out and shoot someone,” White said. “The whole thing with video games is, do something you can’t already do in real life, at least that’s what it is to me.”

After they played the game for about 20 minutes, the teens said they didn’t feel more violent.

The video game industry notes that the research also finds that teenagers have similar responses to violence in movies or TV. The industry said no one can prove a definitive link between virtual violence and the real thing.

Ryan Miller, the manager of general operations for Gamers in Omaha, said video games become an easy scapegoat when children turn violent.

“Just like any new media, it gets attacked. When any new genre of music comes out, it gets attacked. TV will, of course, get attacked. I’m sure, way back when, books got attacked,” Miller said.

Other research shows that antisocial behavior is not a result of the game, but rather the isolation that results when children play the games along for hours on end.

All sides of the argument agree that parental control is important, whether it’s in the purchasing of games or playing them.

Lora and Chuck Payne said they don’t restrict the types of games their son, Tyler, plays, but they do give him a time limit. Chuck Payne said he knows some teens who are allowed to play for hours a day.

“Then, when they’re done playing, that’s all that’s on their mind. Kill. Kill. Kill. Well, one hour a day. Period,” he said.

The Paynes said they have not noticed a change in the son’s aggression level after a gaming session, but they watch what games he plays and what he chooses. 

The Superbowl

February 8, 2008

I didn’t watch the superbowl, or most of it anyway. I watched about 10 minutes of the game and sadly, missed the halftime show completely. But fortunately, the commercials, what I really wanted to see, are all over the internet.

Superbowl commercials are all over the internet. That’s probably the best thing about the Superbowl, at least for me, since I really don’t like to watch football. The commercials can really show you the state of this country’s morality. By this I mean, advertisors try to come as close to the line as possible in making these commercials, without actually stepping over the line. But even those who step over the line still put their commercials on the Internet.

One in particular cought my attention.

https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/media/lounge.asp?isc=gooyg01agc&ci=11591

This commercial is interesting because it straddled the line, the commercial itself being banned from the SuperBowl, but a teaser to it, getting on the Superbowl.

The commercial that got on features Danica Patrick (Young female Nascar Driver) unzipping her racing suit, not to really reveal any cleavage, but to suggest that the banned ad went a lot further.

If you go to the banned ad, as I did, the reason it was banned becomes obvious. The ad shows some Holywood event and beautiful women are arriving in limos. Each one of them had their pet beaver with them. The reporters ooh and aah. Then Danica suddenly appears in her racing suit, and the reporters ask her where her beaver is. They walk away in disgust. Then she says, “At godaddy.com, I get enough exposure so that my beaver can remain safe and out of sight.”

Now there is no nudity or even suggested nudity in this commercial, but the “naughtiness” is the pun on the word “beaver” between its street meaning and its dictionary meaning of a furry little animal.

Personally, I found the commercial gross and juvinile, but it is right on the line. It shows where American morals are. Indeed, even Shakespeare made dirty puns, just as raunchy as this one, and probably the audience was just as vulgar.

Does this mean that things haven’t changed since the time of Shakespeare? Or does it mean that the most successful writers get their inspiration from the same source?

Does it mean that a small group of creative advertisers have tapped into the collective superego of America? Or does it mean that a small group of very bright people, such as Shakespeare, CONTROL the superego of America.

I personally find this fascinating, and will pick this topic up again from time to time.

Amazon.com

February 8, 2008

One part of our assignment was to familiarize ourselves with Amazon.com. Happily, for me that is easy. That is probably my most used website.

Our family probably spends more than $1,000 per year at Amazon.com. We love books. One book we recently purchased there was AFLUENZA, by DeGraff, Wann and Naylor. This book mentions Amazon.com, but not in a favorable light.

Amazon is seen as a culture killer, a giant that killed off and is killing off small business. Sure, it is very easy, when looking for a book, to go to Amizon. There have only been a few times I couldn’t find what I was looking for there. (E.g., a 1888 edition of a Greek and Latin Classical Dictionary.) How many book stores can compete with Amazon.

Homo Sapiens Consumens likes convenience. He likes TV Dinners instead of preparing everything from scratch (except, thank God, for my wife). He likes shopping from the convenience of his living room. The Ma and Pa Bookstore around the corner doesn’t stand a chance.

The authors of Affluenza had two complaints about Amazon and Internet shopping:

First, it kills off local business. I think that complaint is just plain wrong. Sure it is easier to shop at Amazon, but if Ma and Pa Booksellers have any brains, they too will have a presence on the Internet. Or maybe, their only presence will be on the Internet. It is ridiculously easy to set up shop on the Internet. Anyone who can figure out how to work Ebay and Paypal can do it. If anything, the Internet is an incentive for new businesses, not a death march for them.

The second complaint, unfortunately has more validity. The Afluenza authors complain that Internet shopping rules out one of the nice things about old time shopping, the ambiance. Yeah, sure the internet is more convenient than going out to a bookstore, but is it better? At bookstores you can get into conversations with people and exchange ideas and thought. That alone is worth the trip. I have to say, some of the best conversations I have ever had in my life took place in bookstores.

If I had to pick out one characteristic of our society that I think the Internet is promoting more than any other, I would have to say it was isolation. On the internet one shops alone; one argues alone; one lives alone. I have heard of long distance relationships, dating type relationships taking place primarily on the internet. In some cases, people who never meet have a “relationship.”

Not my cup of tea. The internet has its uses, but dating isn’t one of them. I grant you shopping on the internet, if it is not for books, is probably okay. I never had a great conversation in a refrigerator store, or shopping for shoes. But some things, it really is better to buy in person.

God’s Waiting Room

February 2, 2008

The times, they are a changin’

100 years ago, or so, when I was born, there was no internet. There was very little Television, and Radio was the Medium of Choice (not that you had a choice.) I suppose there was also Broadway, and Vaudeville. Sometime in the 1950s television started making it big. I still remember when we got our first Black and White TV, a Stromberg-Carlson. While I was at Penn in the early sixties, I would always find time to watch Laugh-in, the Smothers Brothers, and other really cool shows. Most of the time, however, I didn’t watch television. I hung out with other people and talked.

Fast forward to the present.

My son challenged me to take a course called ”New Media” at Tunxis Community college where he also attends. He is 15 and almost has enough credits for his AA from Tunxis, and has taken a variety of ancient language courses at Trinity as well.

My son is bright, young and hip. He thinks I am totally uncool and, if you will, Media Illiterate. He has tried to get me to play his Wii, and I did. Once. Boring! Zelda? Boring. Mario? Boring.

Huge time wasters. I know people who do not have real lives. They only have virtual lives. One such woman, for example, was called once by my wife to talk about our kids getting together. After a few minutes, the woman was obviously uncomfortable and asked my wife if, instead of calling her and talking on the phone, she could IM her instead.

I think huge numbers of people have completely lost the ability to interact on a personal level, and can only interact with their computers. This is really sad. Imagine if the fondest memory you have is not of Graduation Day, going to parties, driving around with your buddies until dawn but instead of finally getting to the end of Zelda, and rescuing the princess.

Bytheway, my son is NOT one of these people, but could easily become one if we let him. We homeschool, and happily, there are tons of activities for homeschoolers with their peer group. We used to have a homeschool dance every two weeks, and tonight, for example, there is a homeschool twister party.  

Anyway, there are tons of people nowadays who only have virtual lives. Any interpersonal interaction they have is only with others who play the same games. This generation is becoming socially illiterate, and unable to analyze things logically. Because of the game culture, all they can do is relate to a good story, not a logical argument. IQs are falling. Learning FACTS is less important since, after all, you can always look them up on the internet. (Do you really believe that everything on Wikopedia is true?) In short, the country is going to Hell on a Bobsled.

If I had my way, I would remove every computer from every classroom in the country, and teach the basics. If people cannot read or write or do basic math, what do they need a computer for?

God’s Waiting Room, where people go right before they die, used to be poplulated with people talking about their exiting lives and all the wonderful people they knew. Nowadays it is full of people trying to win one last time at Super Mario. 

Hello world!

February 2, 2008

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.