I kid. But, I am also somewhat serious. So it’s not unexpected that Mitt Romney’s “Believe in America” plan seems to be somewhat lacking.

Make no mistake, I’m not qualified to judge his proposals. They might even be what the country needs. But, they aren’t presented in a form that reflects what they are; politically motivated sketches that have been crafted, no pushed, during a Republican Party primary.

Case in point: the file is available online in .pdf format and through Amazon as an e-book. It looks slick. It contains lots of charts. It even references 127 endnotes. On the verso it provides copyright information and notes that this is its “first edition.” Romney’s plan is, in every sense of the form, a traditional publication.

Except it isn’t.

Though the plan reads like a book and looks like a book, it’s not one. It’s a slick, self-published document. And, that is something very different from what politicians have produced in the past. To my knowledge anyway.

No doubt, similar material has been produced by other presidential candidates. But, Romney has done something different… and potentially misleading. His campaign has produced an plan that takes full advantage of digital publication tools. It presents the facade of procedural rigor without the underlying requirement of it.

That is to say, his plan has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. It has not been peer-reviewed. It has not jumped through numerous procedural hoops. And, it did not get approved by an editor who had to take into account if it’s conclusions would reflect poorly on the publishing organization. In a sense, Romey’s plan has gone directly to “go.” It has collected $200 without rolling the dice.

Thanks to Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Word, and other tools the Romney campaign has created something that, once upon a time, would have required a formal process. Self-publishing is so pervasive, so cheap, so convincing, today that it doesn’t require a critique of content anymore. Now anybody can make their document look like a formal publication.

Therein lies the problem.

Because Romney’s plan is stamped with the “Paid for by Mitt Romney for President” identifier, we can tell it’s not an objective set of prescriptions. We can tell it was put together using campaign dollars; likely in-house.

Objectivity may only be something to aim for, but it a world where anybody can make a plan look well-reasoned the processes used to create it matters most of all.

It’s a sort of paradox. Which comes first?

Missouri, my home, has been moving to the right over the past ten years. It’s a mix of Midwestern, Southern, and traditional Americana. So, it comes as no surprise then that given the stagnation of the middle-class and rapid changes brought by globalism there’s a tenancy here to hold on. For dear life. Our nickname is the “Show-Me” state. We don’t trust idealistic prescriptions.

Off-shoring jobs will help everyone? Really? Global warming? Where’s the bulletproof proof? Government can solve our problems? Show me how.

This isn’t to say we’re dyed in the wool conservatives. We’re not. We just just have a tenancy to be skeptical of fantastic claims. You say taxing less won’t hurt the deficit? I call bullshit. There’s a reason Harry Truman was a Democrat.

But, if who we are is a product of our circumstances and personal choices, then I can’t but help wonder what the consequences of globalism will be for us. Missouri’s two biggest cities, St. Louis and Kansas City are fighting suburbanization. Cheap transportation has relegated us to “flyover country” status. Cheap labor and free trade has extended the “rust belt” west.

It’s difficult for us to compete for “creative” knowledge-based jobs too.

Certainly, there are areas in-state that can compete, but they tend to be removed from today’s issues. Springfield, my hometown, can fight back with a low cost of living and lax regulations. Jackson County can’t. And, this environment is pitting urban against rural, members of the working class against business owners. Evangelical Christians against non-believers.

In short, we’re a microcosm of America… as it was.

You see, Missouri is too white to reflect America today because it’s not changing with the country. We’re staying Christian. We’re staying isolated from trendy cultural centers, and we’re staying rooted in the past. That’s why we’re “moving” right. That’s why our  bellwether trend ended in 2008. Our healthy skepticism targets what is actively hurting us and ignores what isn’t. When you are a WASP you don’t tend to have the problems that people on Welfare do.

Then again, if who we are is a product of where we live and the choices we make… all of that could change. There could be a realization that what happens abroad impacts us in St. Charles County. Or a limited government model could fail to provide on it’s promise.

If that does happen, just as quickly our skepticism will turn on other things.

What scares me the most, however, is that if we keep moving from being a political bellwether what  happens? I don’t know. But, I am afraid that it would cause us to lose our “Show Me” mentality. It’s been created by a longstanding of balance powers. One forged in the depths of guerrilla warfare during the Civil War, solidified after World War II, and maintained through today.

It’s loss would be a shame.

There’s another threat out there, and we ignore it all of the time.

Big Brother, in our current situation, isn’t who we think he is. He can be an overly powerful person or group, but in America I’d argue that he doesn’t just take this form. He’s us. And we love him.

Take the Tea Party. Championing small government and free markets, this group of conservatives have hyperventilated over the past two years about an alleged infringement of our liberties by the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Conversely, liberals routinely are up in arms about powerful monied interests like the Koch brothers… who, they argue, wield a disproportionate amount of power.

In each case, there is a fear that “other” groups are trying to control what we see, know, and hear. Be it Rupert Murdoch or NPR, Americans distrust other people’s interpretation of fact. We’re vigilant for external censorship, but never seem to be when looking in the mirror.

Over the past few years, I’ve railed against what I see as technology-enhanced information biases. Among their problems and causes:

• The Internet makes it easy to produce, proliferate, and share information. So [...]
• [...] traditional news sources have segmented allowing people to pick among them. Moreover, [...]
• [...] our biases provide an incentive for us to read, watch, or listen to things that fit our world-view. Worse yet [...]
• [...] this is made worse by a saturated media market full of producers competing for our attention. Of these, those those who reinforce our world-view usually win out. [Also,]
• [...] many cost barriers to media production have disappeared, so professionalization has decreased. So, [...]
• [...] anyone can pretend to be an “expert” while [...]
• [...] it’s difficult to tell who creates what.

Yes. I know that this is an argument that I’ve repeated ad-naseum, but reading Wired today I came across another example that changed my perception of the problem.

In a TED presentation, Eli Pariser argued that the Internet has allowed us to encase ourselves in “information bubbles.” Taking my assessment of bias, he attacks it from another direction by highlighting  ”junk food algorithms.”  You see many web tools are behaviorally driven. Using Facebook as an example, if I click on links from liberal friends then it will eventually learn to show only links from my liberal friends.

Pariser argued, essentially, that we as a society have moved from an age were people acted as the gatekeepers of information to one where programs do. Next, he pointed out his desire for developers to make sure that their programs ensure diverse and representative information continues to be shared. A diversity of viewpoints is, after all, necessary to arrive at an informed conclusion.

While his point is interesting, I’d argue that he still opens himself to a dangerous counter-argument.

Algorithm driven or not, web search results are queried by people. Not programmers. Ultimately, people are responsible for the material they search for; both past and present. Since this is the case, doesn’t tinkering disregard their ability to choose? Doesn’t it amount to censorship? Here is where my perception shifted.

The answer, I would argue, depends on how “freely” you believe that people can choose to search for information, and how biased they can be.

On one hand, if people can independently and freely choose what they search for, then creating an algorithm which “learns” preferences isn’t a bad thing. Adjusting to ignore past choices must then amount to censorship. But, on the other hand if they are like I argued – they have biases and habits (exacerbated by new media) which create a self-reinforcing cycle – then the answer is no.

The answer is no because algorithm programmers aren’t choosing winners and losers. Instead, they are directly combating censorship. They’re targeting self-censoring behavior.

Sometimes, people get so caught up in the pursuit of personal liberty that they fail to realize it’s possible to censor oneself without consciously choosing to do so. In a way, then, we arrive at an instance of Big Brother not being an external person. It’s one where Big Brother is us.

It’s ironic then that the mirrors and televisions from 1984 were windows into people’s lives; a tool for direct censorship. In America today, the same is true but it just as quickly reveals a rarely noticed source. Oneself.

You can’t search for what you don’t know about or want to see. And if you can’t search for anything, then you aren’t truly free.

It was obvious that the rally was going to be an extension of their shows. The two have made a career of openly spoofing the media for it’s worst failures. Sure, Stewart and Colbert are liberals, but at the core their criticism has never been one of ideology. It’s been of messaging.

A lot of people don’t realize that.

Keith Olberman, for example, disliked the rally’s message to “take it down a notch.” Apparently, that would risk conceding to Fox News and the right.

Others have argued that the rally accomplished nothing. Or, that it simply mocked legitimate activism by Glenn Beck and the Tea Party.

David Carr’s piece in the New York Times was one of the few that caught the rally’s point while countering that Stewart is wrong in his analysis. TV pundits only reach a small audience. We really are in serious times.

Browsing though the blogs out there, everyone appears to have their own interpretation. That makes sense. Satire is complex. It thrives on individuals drawing their own conclusions. To crystallize things though, I’d like to highlight a few key passages from the rally’s closing.

Reflecting on these passages, Stewart’s point should be clear. The press and the media are guardians of our national discourse. And, for whatever reason they don’t always communicate properly. They mess up. This mislead us. They blow things out of proportion. They sometimes cater to the lowest common denominator, and if you need evidence?

Well, just watch the Daily Show.

Stewart is thriving because the media is seen as failing. And, if anything Saturday’s rally showed that he doesn’t necessarily want them to. Neither does this librarian.

I’m talking here, of course, about the failure of the media, the government and the “blogosphere” to handle the Shirley Shirod case.

In case you aren’t familiar, three weeks ago a conservative pundit posted an online video of Mrs. Shirod, a Department of Agriculture official, speaking on race and racism. A previous victim, Shirley spoke candidly about her experiences but several statements were used to claim reverse discrimination. To make a long story short, the media picked up on the clip, she was fired, and nobody verified anything. Then the truth came out – her story was a tale of redemption. The clips where out of context.

Over the past year or two, Nicholas Carr has been arguing with journalists and new media advocates about the merits of the Internet. His argument isn’t so much that the Internet is bad as that it encourages short-sighted behavior.

This is the basic idea:

The net allows for quick, easy access to information. Moreover, it’s easy to produce, publish and edit electronic material. Part of new media’s success is due to it’s ease of use and web accessibility. But, in making things easier and more accessible an over-reliance on the internet encourages users to think superficially. Sources, facts and opinions are questioned less.

In short, Carr’s thesis is that the internet works well because it feeds into human nature. Interactivity is an impulsive behavior. But, our innate proclivities often result in negative consequences. Like people getting  fired. The fact that a book titled “Don’t Make Me Think“  epitomizes a mainstream approach to web development speaks volumes about it’s merits and demerits.

At it’s best the web is intuitive to users and creates a democratizing effect. We can all act on instinct, skim a page, or post to Facebook. It is also true, however, that an over-reliance on intuition does not lend well to careful observation.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the Internet is a great thing. It’s perfectly feasible for people to learn to use it in a responsible way. To do that, though, I think requires the careful cultivation of our habits. Once upon a time focused thought was encouraged. Now, we rush to use computers as a “time saver.”

Being able to read does not make one fully literate. Neither does being able to use the internet. Yet, we continue to be obsessed with accessibility and being able to find information as quick as possible.

Bad idea. Here’s why.

Once upon a time publishing was a controlled, one-shot process. A lot of time and effort went into printing material. Now, anyone can publish to the web and it’s easy to have trouble distinguishing between “good” and “bad” information. There’s so much! Format, or creator, doesn’t necessarily determine quality but we aren’t taught how to identify quality information. I never took a class to tell the truth from lies. Most people don’t underlying mechanisms that make new media function either.

Unfamiliarity limits perspective.

Moreover, as companies like Google emphasize ease of use… finding quality information takes a back seat. The nature of the web is open and free, but that can be a bad thing. Especially, when you don’t realize what you’re dealing with.

My, how the tables turn!

This reminds me of why Internet access (and digital libraries) need to be accessible to lawmakers. And, with information becoming ambiently findable, why they need to be able to fact check one another in real time. The Annenburg Public Policy Center seems to understand this. They host FactCheck.org. So does the St. Petersburg Times which produces the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact website. Unfortunately, not all of Missouri’s Senators do. Traditional media can’t move at the speed of assertion.

I may have been too hard on Sen. Nodler, especially after I found this site, but given any viewing of “Countdown with Keith Olberman” or “The O’Riley Factor” it’s obvious that political fact checking has it’s own bizarre standard. Interestingly, the media has become segmented in recent years which has allowed political hacks to justify almost anything.

This is a common problem. The internet, radio, and television are all  littered with falsehoods and half-truths, partially because anyone can slap an something together capable of reaching a wide audience. If properly approached, though, this problem can be resolved.

Basically, my argument is this. Given access to quality, agreed upon information sources, and perhaps a revised legislative process, politicians can improve the quality of discourse as debate occurs. If provided the opportunity to call one another out using evidence (the moment something is wrongly asserted), politicians then could, hopefully, improve their bottom line.

Of course they need to have access to the necessary information first, and they need to agree where to get it. The Daily Kos and the Drudge Report obviously should be ruled out.

This morning I took the time to read through a variety of sources concerning Congresses’ effort and the results were telling. Predictably, everything fell into camps that catered to their target demographic’s pre-conceived perceptions. What does this mean for the future of objective research? Is the “media,” if such a group exists anymore, fostering too much democracy?

My point isn’t so much that the media are to blame for Americans not “getting along.” As long as differences in opinion have existed, so have different information sources. Plus, to stay solvent a number of news agencies have had to market to specific audiences. Instead, what I’m arguing is that we are seeing something unique thanks to information being so easy to produce and find.

Newspapers, broadcasters, and other media producers have to segment the market to thrive. Simultaneously, people can find skewed information that backs up their beliefs easier than ever before. The two form a circular process in which the public can look for what they want and the media can produce more of it. They rely on one another. They’re supercharged by the internet and computers. It’s common to talk about clamor in democracy as occurring in a feedback room. I think a completely different feedback process is occurring as we speak.

With information as accessible as it ever was, current news spreads fast.  But, is that a good thing? Is there a dark side to having quick access to information? I don’t doubt that there are many, many benefits,  but it’s also plausible that a universal acceptance of new media can lead to an inevitable playing toward the lowest common denominator?

Like sex, anger and frustration sell remarkably well.

Now, to be fair there’s a long tradition in journalism of people playing to others feelings, and new media doesn’t change that, but it’s also realistic to believe we are witnessing a sort of megaphone effect. People naturally look to validate their own beliefs and we all have source biases. But, given that there are so many sources out there the promulgation of information means that today it’s possible to validate anything. Once upon a time objective research was considered to be important. Today it garners CNN’s ratings.

As time goes on and the general public “backs up” their arguments using easily found resources, I suspect, they will also come to more rigidly defend them. After all if you can find it quickly then it must be true, right? The more rigidly the general public defends their arguments, of course, the more likely we are to see an increase in the volume of national discourse.

If this is the case, then the free flow of information may actually come at a cost. Blogs, Twitter,  and the changing technology driving shifts in information seeking behaviors… I see them as partially to blaim.

I don’t know much about his voting record and I don’t care about his politics. I just don’t think I could vote for someone who has repeatedly helped to kill proposals that would allow laptops on the floor of the Missouri State Senate. While I respect his “love of tradition” and his concern that technology can distract people from important business… he has disregarded a few important things:

• Instant access to information could improve debate and discussion.
• The only reason a laptops  haven’t been on the floor of the Senate floor… is because they are relatively new.
• Senators are not in High School. A computer might distract them from time to time but they’re adults. They can focus just fine.
• Opposing the use of laptops or similar equipment makes him come across as a Luddite.

I know that technology has it’s share of problems but barring it from an important institution is not realistic.

- The Story of Stuff

I’ve always been surrounded by people who are mindful of human impacts on the environment. So, when I packed up and went to college I payed close attention to an up-and-coming form of environmentalism; sustainability. I can’t say exactly how it caught my attention, but the differences between sustainability and previous environmental approaches are notable.

Traditional environmentalism advocates conservation and preservation. Think of Jane Goodall fighting to save gorilla habitat or the government creating a national park. The other. Well, the other – if it’s not carefully heeded – means that humans need to drastically change the way they live. Proponents of sustainable living practices note that we only have a finite number of resources on Earth and that it’s our duty to change present consumption habits from linear to sustainable ones.

Unfortunately, this is not only a tall order but it’s complex to boot. Complex enough in fact that it requires every portion of the materials economy (including you) to do it’s share! Previous identification of environmental issues weren’t quite like this. Take, for example, halting global climate change… perhaps the largest issue identified by environmentalists to date. Scientists point out that they think Earth’s recent warming trend is being caused by Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and that it comes from tangible sources. Human sources! The United States yearly transportation accounts for 529 million metric tons of CO2 released a year while Industrial, Commercial, and Residential sources produce 447, 340, and 296 million tons respectively.

So, without taking too much time to go into Global Warming, an important point needs to be made: previous environmental protection measures have identified specific problems and sought to reduce or resolve their severity to protect the environment. In cutting CO2 emissions humans can take drastic measures that change their lifestyle, but that’s where the impact stops – the problem being fixed. Sustainability, instead focuses on making  an entire  society sustainable. It follows that human influences are treated differently. Sustainability is an orientation toward the world around us… not an attempt to resolve or avoid singular problems that constitute the whole. And, because it doesn’t limit itself it requires help to make feasible. A lot of help. Humans can try and act as stewards and protect the environment on a case-by-case basis, but unless we try to do so in a sustainable manner (across the breadth of the materials economy) a long-term risk is run; we can run out of a given resource. We can damage local ecosystems and the planet beyond repair too.

This is where I intrude.

I think that, properly used, digital libraries can help librarians do their part to “go green.”

Certainly, the concept of sustainability is controversial to some, and Cornucopians argue that humans can always find ways around or through our problems. Transforming the global economy to a sustainable footing may also turn out to come at a very high social, humanitarian, or economic cost!

Not being willing to ignore these objections I personally believe that it never hurts to prepare for the future. That in mind, I am willing to argue that digital libraries can offset a number of environmental and ecological problems. Plus, since libraries are moving toward a dependence on digital material anyway it seems harmless to entertain the benefits of such a model. If it helps the environment then great! If it can be run on a realistic sustainable model even better still.

]]> http://weblog.amillion.us/archives/974/feed 0 http://weblog.amillion.us/archives/955 http://weblog.amillion.us/archives/955#comments Tue, 12 May 2009 03:47:04 +0000 AJ Million http://weblog.amillion.us/?p=955 No wonder my Blog doesn’t get any love. There’s just too much good stuff out there. I stumbled across Retro Thing the other day which fits perfectly with my current Amateur Astronomy obsession. Lots of cool gadgets!

Case in point: Discretionary funding for transportation improvements.

Yesterday, I had a question at work regarding when the U.S. Department of Transportation would be able to release discretionary funding to the States. Thanks to an online version of the ARRA, the newly created Recovery.gov, and several other online resources I was able to find out exactly when the funding would be open for competitive bidding. Mind you, this let me sort through a 400 page legal document in 10 minutes.

If the Federal Government can keep this up then as someone who does this for a living I might just be impressed.

The Webster County Library is twenty miles away and their only options for Internet access are dial-up and an expensive satellite Internet contract. A few months ago the local phone company provided DSL service to the rest of the people on their road, but because they live in a valley the company decided not to hook them up. Interestingly enough this presents a very unique situation. With the Internet out of reach and broadband necessary to access all but the most basic sites my parents are effectively being denied a link to the outside world. Given a recent NPR piece on rural Internet networks this is the case for about 10% of the United States.

Twenty years ago nobody would have considered the Internet and information access to be a utility. I’m not so sure this is the case anymore. With important Government information, forms, and other private sector data only accessible online those without access are left, well, disenfranchised. The children who group up in rural environments are notably at a disadvantage as well. Though I haven’t taken the time to lay out a strong argument for it my intuitions certainly seem to hint that the Internet is a utility that all Americans should have access to. After all, isn’t the cornerstone of Democracy an informed general populace?