Immigration

You know you have a problem when the poor can't even afford to live poorly.

Do you think the Romans had problems with slaves trying to sneak into their provinces looking for work? And if not, does that mean people could always find enough to survive where they lived? Until now.


-- Mobile and Free

Haight actually

-- Mobile and Free

Media effects 2

Media has an effect. Multi-billions of dollars in branding and marketing put an end to opposition on this matter starting 50 years ago if don't count the fascists who showed the world the power of propaganda. If we researches have found it to be ellusive it's because of the weakness of our tools or the strength of our paradigm.

If the strength of the effect depends on the individual, then we should make a careful study of the messages to find what possible effect they could convey and set x to be the unknown amplifier indicating the size of the effect.

"This is a giraffe." is not indicative of "hatstand, football, tack," but it might be persuasive next to "this is a camel." (weird)

The point is that a message text conveys a number of things but not an infinite number of things. By studying the use of language in a body of text, it is possible to discover the range of possible effects. It is these ELEMENTAL effects, irrespective of the IMPACT effect, that can be cataloged and evaluated as positive or negative when applied to a particular perspective; in this case, to evaluate the potential for attention-getting protest to net positive elemental effects from media coverage of the event.

You can develop a sense attitudinal directions from the text and plot out a trajectory for variable impact effects based on clustering of attitude types. The important thing is to find out what is being said in the aggregate.

-- Mobile and Free

Media effects

Media and messages have effects. Those effects may be collosal or even notable for their absence. The dependant variable in the equation is the single changeable element which has variance possibly approaching N. Based on these idiosyncratic states, which could last for a moment or a lifetime, people are variably entranced or inured by the media of messages.

It has been suggested that messages can be less effective once someone has already accumulated some knowledge on a subject. That is why I recommend forming as many opinions as possible to protect yourself.

-- Mobile and Free

Equivocation

Tyrany for the right reason does not become acceptable because it is not tyrany for the wrong reason.

-- Mobile and Free

The law

When you make petty laws, you make the law petty.


-- Mobile and Free

Discussions on a French bill proposing to ban burkas

Lauren Konopka posted this link.

Tuesday at 3:21pm

Rich Cleland: I don't know how they can act like this and still consider themselves on the side of liberty.

Tuesday at 6:38pm

Lauren Konopka: I agree...

Tuesday at 7:49pm

Chris Clague: probably not quite sober enough to provide a properly lucid response here, but are you saying the veil is a good thing?

23 hours ago

Lauren Konopka: I'm conflicted about veiling, especially from a non-Muslim western woman's perspective. It's certainly not something I'd want to wear, and my first reaction is to find it oppressive and when I see a woman covered in that manner, I have to admit I feel uncomfortable. But I also think it's pretty extreme to ban facial veils in public in this manner. Seems like a violation of civil liberties, and yet another move to further erode relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. What's your take on it? It's a tough one...

23 hours ago

Rich Cleland: I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment that the veils are a device of the patriarchal control infused into the religious doctrine of Islam for a number of reasons, including social control...something endemic in most Western religions from that era.

That said, my concept of liberty includes the freedom to practice your devotions to your god as you see fit (short of extremes like human sacrifice, etc...which, whatever that threshold is, is a long way away from covering your face). If a government says you can't go to church on Sunday or that you must work during Yom Kippur, I don't think that government is invested much in the spirit of liberty.

I agree with Lauren that this bill likely will greatly strain relations between the French and Muslims. Add it to the rules already in place forbidding head covers for school children in France (of course, insuring that Muslim kids stay out of secular schools and go to madrases instead, oops) and the ban on building minarets in Switzerland. It's part of the reactionary response to the changing demographic landscape of Europe (which is necessary because "traditional" Europeans stopped having enough babies to support their economic system).

In France, the cultural problems arise also from two places not directly related to Islam, 1) is a latent suspicion of all religion that is residue of the machinations of the Catholic in France in conjunction with the Monarchy and 2) the desire for comforting homogeneity runs deep. Someone once described to me the French idea of "Liberte" is not the same as the general American sense of the word in that (and i confess i don't really understand how this works, but...) the French take it to mean something like "the freedom to be French."

anyway, that's my $.02.

21 hours ago

Chris Clague: Being something of a wooly liberal (or a dangerous radical in Tea-Party parlance), I'm of the live and let live point of view. I have no objection to people practicing their religion, but I do object when they impose it on others. I don't like the veil from a oppression/control angle, but my beef is also that when worn in Western society it ignores/is insensitive to our customs.

When somebody wears a mask (or a hoodie or whatever) it is perceived (rightly or wrongly) that they either have something to hide or are being in some way deceitful. We place an awful lot of value when communicating on facial recognition/response which is impossible. I guess you could try using skype but where the other party can see you, but you can't see them! It feels like you are at an immediate disadvantage.

I don't know how widely reported it was in the states, but we had a wanted criminal escape the country here as he wore his wife's Burka through passport control and this was allowed, which is patently ridiculous.

The French have made a great effort to separate state from religion (for example, you can't get married in a church!), and I guess this is a logical extension of that process. I think it's a positive thing. Sorry I couldn't be more eloquent in my argument though!

5 hours ago

Rich Cleland: Chris, I entirely agree that it is an unacceptable lapse to allow people through security without making a visual reference check between the identification and individual. It seems impossible to believe that there were not some measures that could be put in place to work with the Islamic practice in airports. But that seems more a rebuke of inept airport security officials rather than an injunction against religious adherences.

As to the competitive advantage to be gained from wearing a burka around people who remain exposed, I'm not sure it is a net advantage in the end. In any event, I try not to view my day-to-day interactions with people in terms of personal advantage or disadvantage because of the negative influence I found that line of thinking has on my well-being. I found it to be a psychological relief to discover that the vast majority of people i will come across in my lifetime do not wish me ill or even feel we are engaged in some sort of competition.

In addition, I'm not afraid for my customs. They are strong, and even so, I look forward to how they evolve and grow from interaction with others.

A free society is not judged by how well it tolerates its people going with the flow, rather it is judged by how it acts when they start to rub. The gain we receive from living in a free society is the opportunity it affords to learn about ourselves and others when our ways are put into contact.

Aside from liberation from fear and opportunity for personal growth, there is the inevitable downside to cultural apartheids. When governments through their citizens systematically disenfranchise a population from their opportunity of equal participation in the public sphere, it can't later be chagrined when those people reject its authority.

Of course people reject tyranny. When there are enough of them, they do something about it, until then, they make plans to do something about it. Ultimately, the only way to receive respect is to give it bravely.

I would further add that walking down the street is hardly a state affair. Denuding this activity of personal religious expression is hardly a matter of a separation for church and state.

The effect of the French bill if it passes will be to engender false security and puff up the ridiculous cultural imperialist mentality through government sanction while stoking the feelings of alienation and fulfilling the dark prophesies of radical extremists who are empowered through government censure.

In the end, great, the offense is removed from the streets! Instead, those women in the burkas sit at home, increasing their isolation with even less opportunity experience our customs and possibly be changed by them too.

I think this is the long view. I think that this is how a free society is supposed to function. I think the answer to ending terrorism is to just stop terrorizing first and then see what happens. And frankly, i'm tired of people, wooly or otherwise, not seeing it my way! :)