A Few Thoughts before Tuesday

Just a final reminder before tomorrow of what's on the line in this historic election.

There is much more at stake on Tuesday than simply a new guy at the top of the org chart.

The next President of the United States will inherit over 6.25 trillion dollars in public debt and a faulty economy that could slip into a depression. He faces a rising unemployment rate—currently at 6.1% nationally, or over 9.5 million jobless workers. He must address a growing gap between rich and poor and unite a country increasingly polarized along class lines. Will he take the side of the workers who keep the country running, or will he continue to capitulate to corporate interests as the current administration has done for the past eight years? Will the next round of tax cuts benefit you or big businesses? The choice is largely up to us.

President 44 will also have to deal with two unwinnable wars in the Middle East that have cost the country well over 500 billion dollars; the lives of more than 4,700 civilian deaths in Iraq alone. To put this in perspective, that's about one September 11th per week for four years straight. Will we elect a leader who sings 'bomb bomb Iran' or one who will give diplomacy an honest chance?

It's likely that at least one Supreme Court justice will retire within the next four years. As you may know, judges for the Supreme Court are appointed by the president and are not accountable to the people. A Democratic president will most likely appoint a liberal or moderate judge, while—if recent history is any indication—a Republican will seek to appoint a reactionary right-wing justice who is dangerously out of touch with contemporary public attitudes. Several cases are set to come before the Court in the next presidential term, ranging from abortion rights to free-speech issues to torture. These cases could affect the course of the country for decades to come. It behooves us to consider carefully where that course will take us.

In California, we have a chance to strike down legislation whose sole purpose is to restrict the rights of a specific group of people—a group of people every bit as human and deserving of equal legal protection as any other in the country. I am, of course, talking about Proposition 8. Regardless of our individual opinions on homosexuality, as Americans we ought to be appalled, if not outraged, that someone would want to take away as basic a civil liberty as marriage. It shouldn't matter whether it affects us personally. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others. Or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.'

America's image among the rest of the world has been severely tarnished in the past decade. Will we lie down and accept another administration that defines patriotism as how many flag pins we wear and how loudly we parrot the official party line? Will we continue to be governed by the politics of fear and ignorance, or will we wipe the patina free by recognizing once more that 'America' is, more than anything else, a state of mind, a definite concept of what 'freedom' really means? (Thanks, Naomi Wolf!)

The choice, now more than ever, is up to us. So let's take our country back before it's too late. Let's vote for leadership based on hope and compassion, not fear and hatred. Let's refuse to be passive observers and show the world what America is really about. Let's make it happen. On Tuesday, and on every day thereafter.

NIN vs. Radiohead

Wired News has a little thing about Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead's latest label-free distribution. They say

In Rainbows is a real Radiohead album with 10 (college) radio-ready songs that many labels would have been proud to put their stamp on. ... Reznor's sprawling, 36-song instrumental opus is either a brilliant explosion of the traditional album format or an example of poor self-editing.

I'll concede that Ghosts I-IV may not be the best-flowing "album" ever released by NIN, but to say it's an example of poor anything is just... ridiculous! A large percentage of the album is fantastic, presenting some of Reznor & Co.'s best sonic explorations since The Fragile. The album format in general has been a waning art form for some time now; I applaud Radiohead for putting together something that works as an album, but implying that In Rainbows is better or has less substance solely for that reason doesn't sound particularly forward-thinking to me.

But why does there have to be a "smackdown" in the first place? If the albums stand on their own—and, more importantly, if the artists can make and share the music they want to make—who cares?

(Of course, I am a huge Nine Inch Nails fan, so maybe I'm just too emotionally invested. :P )

Musical Xenophobia

I read an article on the New York Times website this morning about music's influence over teenagers. It basically said nothing, but some of the comments were interesting; I read a couple that were a little off-the-deep-end, though, excerpts from one of which follow (Read the full posts here and here; registration [free] may be required).

While the lyrics are worrisome on many of these songs, we are ignoring the greater two dangers - 1) the rhythm of both hip hop and rap, which deliberately causes accelerated heart rhythms and is shown time and again in studies to make listeners more aggressive and by implication ease them into casual violence, aided and abetted by lyrics which subliminally say it’s okay to be violent, it’s okay to be mysoginistic, it’s okay to be strung out; and 2) the loudness of the music, particularly the pervading bass lines, which is rapidly damaging the hearing of a whole generation.

This guy is either inventing facts on the fly, or otherwise he is the victim of the racist anti-rap propaganda machine that's been active since the inception of hip-hop. Or he's just fallen into the generation gap. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of most rap, and that the blatant violence and misogyny prevalent in commercial rap is somewhat offensive personally. (I make the distinction because mainstream rap is what most people get exposed to, and the positive/political/philosophical lyrics are more often found in "underground" hip-hop.) But I don't believe that there is any sound basis for either of these allegations.

First, any kind of music can increase a person's heart rate. The ability to manipulate a listener's feelings and reactions is a sign of an effective piece of music. Classical music, with its complex melodies and structures, can get my heart going; does that make it an undue influence? So, in that sense, of course it's deliberate. It's not a bad thing in itself. Rhythm and tempo are only a small part of the effectiveness of music. Why else would there be such a wide range?

Second, any statement that contains the phrase "studies have shown..." should be immediately discounted unless the statement is succeeded by reference to said studies. Otherwise it's a baseless assertion. So show me the studies that have proved "time and again" that any kind of music "eases [one] into casual violence." Because I'm not going to buy it without evidence.

Third, no study has shown conclusively that subliminal messages have any strong effect on the one to receive such messages. Perhaps the OP is confusing the concept of subliminal messaging with lyrical metaphors. In any case, such classic lines as "I got the ex if you're into takin' drugs" or "She act like she ain't gon' survive the night without my dick all up in her ass" are rather "superliminal," wouldn't you say? There are a lot of political discussions to be had about the pervasive violence and misogyny in rap lyrics, but that's not our focus right now.

Finally, hearing loss is typically caused by cilia in the ear vibrating so hard and fast that they break. This kind of motion can only be caused by high frequencies; the wavelengths of basslines are too wide to impact the vestibule in this way, which is why low bass tones are more often felt rather than heard. To my knowledge, the only way low-frequency sound can damage hearing is if the SPL is high enough to damage parts of the middle ear, such as the eardrum. Extreme volume can cause hearing loss, obviously, but such loss is in the higher frequency range because high-frequency sounds carry more energy. As an avid fan and DJ of drum & bass, I like to think I know a little something about basslines. ;)

Again, you ignore the effect of subliminal messaging, which is very strong in modern music, due to the nature of the music and the methods of listening. Do you think that there is no relationship at all between the increase of violence among youths and the music they listen to?

Again, show me the studies that prove this. The OP goes on to discuss the ubiquity of hip-hop in contemporary advertising, and points to it as proof that media companies are using the alleged hypnotic qualities of the music as a means to influence people. Now, I'm no fan of advertising's subtle exertion of influence through psychology—which undoubtedly does exist—but this is flat-out xenophobic paranoia. The much more likely reason that hip-hop is so prevalent in the mainstream is that it's popular. It sells.

Of course there's a relationship—occasionally some level of correlation—between between people's behavior and the music they listen to. But there is no causation apparent in either direction; the interplay is much more complex than "listen to music → do what it describes." The same charges have been leveled against jazz in the '20s, rock and roll in the '50s, psychedelic rock in the '60s, disco in the 70's, and "rave" music in the '90s. Again, this is an area of discussion that is very much alive in many different fields, from sociology to politics to marketing, and there is no consensus. To talk like the issue is settled is, frankly, narrow-minded and obviously self-serving.

That's about all I've got for now. I just thought that the original post was so misinformed and badly argued that I had to say something about it. :P

communism vs. Communism

With "communism" being America's second favorite scapegoat behind "terrorists," I thought it might be interesting to some people to see a quick briefing on the subject. A disclaimer: I'm still very much just a student of Marxism and socialism in general, so there may be some small errors; I do believe that it is mostly sound, though.

First, a distinction must be drawn between Communism with a capital 'C' and "regular" communism, as well as between communism and socialism. We'll concentrate on the former for now. Communism, in most people's minds, conjures up images of the Soviet Union, of gulags, rations, and secret police. This is not exactly a coincidence or a mistake, but that's a story for another time. While the Russian Revolution of 1917 began with good intentions—the overthrow of the political and economic elite and emancipation of all workers—its vision was eventually led astray by a number of factors; what many think of when they hear the word communism is more closely associated with Stalinism. Stalinism is rejected by many socialists as a perversion of Lenin's theory of the state and of Marxist communism in general. For the same reason, among others, many do not consider Castro's Cuba—and certainly not China—as real socialist states, despite their proclamations.

One of the defining characteristics of the USSR under Joseph Stalin was the cult of personality surrounding his image as Lenin's spiritual successor and the one who could make Russia a serious competitor on the world stage. Stalin dealt harshly with critics and opponents, to a degree far exceeding Lenin's dealings with his. It is Stalin's USSR that often comes to mind when one thinks of a "police state." The centralization of control around a single dictator with near unrestrained power is antithetical to true communism; Marx and Engels warned explicitly against personality cults and vesting too much power in too few leaders. Eugene Debs phrased the reasoning for this rather well when he said, "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could, for if you could be led out, you could be led back again." It is up to the workers to think and act for themselves, because no single leader, no matter how ostensibly righteous, can be trusted to act in their interest. The Stalin kind of dictatorship is far removed from Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat," a temporary phase of revolution in which the workers defend their control of the state from the hostile remnants of the bourgeoisie. (Recall the saying "Power concedes nothing without a fight.")

As a result of Stalinism's indelible imprint and the legacy of the McCarthy-era Red Scare, the word "communist" is often used as a pejorative term against someone who challenges the existing social order, or engages in other transgressive advocacy for such causes as universal health care; progressive taxation; gay rights; gun control; corporate responsibility; the protection of civil rights; et cetera, ad nauseam. This use of the word carries with it a strong sense of anti-Americanism and a disdain for democratic institutions; "commies," by this token, are automatically America-haters. The irony, however, is that true socialist organizations are far more democratic than the two-party shell game we have here in the United States. Marxist/Leninist conceptions tend to require strong accountability, electing officials by a direct popular vote (as opposed to the electoral college/delegate system that we use) and providing for the instant recall of an official in the event they don't do their job.

Next up: The fallacy of arguing that the collapse of the Soviet Union discredited communism's viability.

Don't Be Evil

(This is not a tirade against Google, nor is it a paranoid Unabomber-esque treatise against technology. Just some thoughts. Also, yes, I know, much of this is not an original idea; I've read 1984 and The Minority Report as well. :P)

A nice sentiment indeed, and it's a great PR bite. But is it really Google's philosophy? How can we be sure? Google is worth a hell of a lot of money. Now that it's publicly traded, there is the expectation of stockholders that it continue to make more and more money. Raking in money and not being evil often seem like incompatible goals; will those at the helm be able to resist the greed and corruption made so tempting by wealth and power? Will they bend their definition of "evil" to justify questionable deeds or remain relevant?

These are serious questions, because Google has amassed a huge amount of power and influence in its short life. www.google.com is the home page for an awful lot of people, myself included. Google software is becoming ubiquitous, to the point where people type in www.google.com to make sure they have an internet connection. "Google" is a colloquially accepted English verb. Consider also Google Maps. Google News. Google Desktop.

Google Earth.

Power indeed. History has warned us time and again to be wary of placing too much trust, too much authority in any one entity. Google's server farms are some of the most concentrated stores of processing power in the world. Search is an incredibly useful application of that power, and it has undoubtedly sparked a radical shift in the way we remember and recall information. But many of us tend to limit our conception of search technology to civilian and scientific use. With more and more personal data being digitized and stored on networks, could such technology be put to more nefarious ends?

Imagine an instantly-searchable database of personal dossiers on each of a country's citizens: Who they are, where they live, bank accounts, jobs, hobbies. Search by the name of a "person of interest." Search for keywords in the annotations on a citizen's file (collaboratively edited by law enforcement officials using Google Docs, perhaps?). Find all men aged 18-40 of racial minority with prior convictions for assault in Los Angeles County. Compile a list of citizens with a history of political activism known to reside near the planned site for a leader's public address.

Sure, money talks, but information is the real gold in future economies. If Google were to travel the truly evil path, it may have the best chance of any corporation at not just manipulating a government, but becoming one. Forget the police state. Prepare for the Google state.