Once again, a gremlin in editing feature of my blog…So, once again, I need to do a chapter 2.
Two comments came soon after publication about the Newsweek article about Al Franken:
from Eric: I went to Newsweek to read the Franken piece you highlighted. They have taken it down because they couldn’t verify it. Cheers and keep up the good work toward a better world.
from Carol, from Newsweek: “Newsweek has retracted its story about a conservative botnet effort to force the resignation of Senator Al Franken.
The initial report was based on research conducted by Unhack The Vote, a group examining outside influence in U.S. elections and politics. It alleged that a “decidedly alt-right” botnet “weaponized” anti-Franken stories and amplified pressure on Franken to resign after allegations of sexual misconduct. Newsweek was unable to independently verify their claims after a further review of their work.
Newsweek regrets the error.”
Dick: I guess it just reemphasizes my point, that it is good to be skeptical about “facts”. At least Newsweek provided the correction, by removing the article.
from Claude: I liked your thoughtful blog, Dick. It’s easy to think that the new media (current and upcoming) are out of control because there are so many actors. “There is no pilot” to borrow a line from Laurie Anderson, poet/songwriter. Or to assume that the global corporations are learning on the fly to use the new media for planetary crowd control. The truth is more likely in the middle.
There is much to be learned on media by revisiting Marshall McLuhan who is my hero when it comes to media studies. Most people think he only focused on TV and therefore is out-of-date. But his ideas were born from looking back at the big picture which includes the invention of the phonetic alphabet, the printing press, telegraph (Marshall 1844 as the start of the Electric Age with the coming of the commercial telegraph), radio, TV, etc.
One of his prescient insights was his generalization (and warning) that every new medium gets the content it deserves. That’s why your insight that a tweet is a headline without content hit me like a brick.
I have a playlist of my “video collages” devoted specifically to Marshall McLuhan: here
In a couple of them [#42 and 43] I use the clip in which Marshall states “If unimpeded the logic of this sort of electric world is stasis.”
Thanks for all you do. Uploaded video collages are here.
Dick: Speaking as a former junior high school teacher in a large junior high school, there is no more stupid idea than arming teachers to take out potentially dangerous intruders. I recall a situation in the late 1960s when a 9th grade kid – a student – came to my school with a pistol. In those days, and in that situation, he was just a show-off in a crowded hallway between classes, and the administration dealt with it since he was near the office. He had the gun, and it was a crowded hallway. He could have been anywhere in the building. He was, as I say, just a showoff, a ninth grader. This was 50 years ago. I still remember the incident.
2:35 a.m. Overnight came this, from a long-time good and valued friend in another state. It speaks for itself.
So…I’m a “Democrat” and thus a killer? That seems the implication. The enemy is me! I’m sure my friend will dispute this, but that is the narrative sold to the ‘flock’, terrified that they will lose their weaponry.
I’m no stranger to the “guns” conversation. Put “guns” in my search box (above right), and you’ll see reference to 66 posts that have the word. If you read every one of them, you’ll not one time any advocacy for getting rid of guns in this society, though I have never owned a firearm, and don’t intend to, and years ago qualified as expert with the M-1 in the U.S. Army. What I call for is sane management of guns, more than the tiny ‘bandaids’ proposed.
The insanity of this whole converstion is that I think it is far more likely that Guns are a liability than an asset for those who use them – or threaten to use them – as self-ordained militia. Prisons are full of people who murdered someone with a gun. Most of them probably felt the victim had it coming….
With respect to the instant issue, I think that the Parkland high school shootings may end up being for the gun lobby and its supporters the same as the Kent State killings in 1970 escalated the end of the Vietnam War. Yes, 1970 is a long time ago. But back then the young had finally had it with they or their friends being cannon fodder in Vietnam.
To my old friends, from my generation, this battle has to be for the youth who are most affected. Our day is past. Support, yes. Dominate, no. To the youth, this is my test for you: how are you going to manage your own future concerning weapons and other aspects of your future? It is a serious question. Another question to think about: how does the serious proposal to make universal the right of gun owners to transport their states gun rights into someone else’s state. That is frightfully near passage in the Congress.
With no military weaponry easily available to a teenager on Valentine’s Day, 2018, there would be no 17 dead being mourned now in Florida.
The same can go for other deadly events where other weapons of destruction were the players, such as the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. An army of gun-toting defenders against violence at Murrah Building would have had no chance.
We are a violent society. It is time that we deal with ourselves.
From Norm (Norm is a long-time DFL (Democratic) activist in Minnesota.) News story this morning regarding Tim Walz’s decision to support some gun control efforts that the NRA does not support. Walz is a member of the NRA and has received support from that organization in the past, support that may now be in jeopardy.
Obviously, contrary to some of the claims made by some folks residing under our big tent, NRA membership does not mean that a member supports all of its official public policy positions. In fact, there have been indications that the “rank and file” NRA members generally support more controls such as background checks and so on.
The news article claims that the “change in position” by Walz on the matter will put him at odds with Minnesota gun owners which may or may not be true.
In any event, his new position on the matter may change the dynamics of the race for governor in Minnesota both in the DFL contest for party endorsement as well as for the support of the Republican candidate for the office, Tim Pawlenty.
You can be sure that once Pawlenty enters the fray, he will wrap himself in the Second Amendment which the Supreme Court of the US has affirmed as meaning the right of all citizens to bear arms for protection and so on at any time and not just in the time of war.
As such, the argument as to what the Second Amendment means has been settled.
On the other hand, if the claims are true that most NRA members favor some additional controls on the purchase and ownership of guns, then Walz may benefit by speaking out on the matter as he has just done.
Of course, as you well know, his change of position as well as any more tragedies like the recent one in Florida will significantly increase the sale and registration, i.e. permits to carry, throughout the US which may not work in Walz’s favor.
Big doings (as one of my uncle would also refer to as local events in my home town) this weekend in the NRA sponsored conference of conservatives that will be attended by the narcisstic draft dodger and his VP as well as I am sure other prominent Republican legislators to reassure their supporters that all is well and that no one is going to take away their guns.
I am sure that the spin will be on the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to defend themselves with a suggestion or two regarding arming school teachers and/or placing guards in the schools. They will probably also throw in something about preventing mentally ill folks from purchasing and owning guns…which would seem to be almost an impossible thing to legislate let alone prevent.
I mean, do mentally ill folks walk around with a scarlet M on their foreheads or a wrist band noting that they are mentally ill?
They will emphasize that they are only concerned about public safety, of course!