Man. I was just reading about some crazy shit goin down in Iraq and, although it's late and I'm somewhat drunk, I thought I'd comment. It looks as if the sectarian violence in Iraq is intensifying. What was recently Sunnis fighting Shias is now worsening to Shias fighting Shias. Iraq appears to be falling into complete anarchy. While the Mahdi Army and al-Sadr Brigade were scary enough, the fact that they appear to be becoming too main stream for the radicals is very frightening. These groups, which were the extreme a year ago, are now being left behind by those who wish to take the conflict to the next level. These new groups appear to have no desire to work with the federal government at all. While I personnally think the government is a pawn of the States, to a large extent, it is still the only major centralized Iraqi institution. This new development will only lead to further anarchy and violence.

Wireless technology is rapidly changing the way modern society opperates. In A Remote Control for Your Life, Charles C. Mann discusses the attempted development of ubiquitous computing by NTT DoCoMo. What DoCoMo wants to do is make cell-phones that not only make audio calls, surf the internet and take pictures/videos, but also can be used at "the post office, as a building pass, a corporate ID, any kind of membership card, a credit card," according to executive Takeshi Natsuno, "the phone will replace the wallet in five years." (Mann, 136) Wireless technology is expanding at such an incredible rate that it is quite probable Natsuno is right. Over the coming decades human beings are going to become increasingly wired in to their surroundings, as modern computer technology permeates further into our everyday lives. I do not think that the impact of this on our society should be underestimated. As we come to use computers and cell phones more and more in our lives, we become dependent on them. I went to school without my phone the other day and when I realized on the bus that I did not have it, it really bothered me, and I felt naked. From a guy who four years ago said he would never even own a cell phone, this is a radical change.
It seems that nowadays you always have to be connected. If someone sends me e-mail and I do not check it for a couple days, it is as if I've committed a crime. Same thing happens when my cell goes off and I don't answer it. People around me, or the selfish bastard calling, expect that I will automatically answer the call. But why do I have to? Sometimes I just don't feel like talking on the phone, it's nothing personal, I just do not want to talk. Unfortunately, when the call is from my boss or some other such authority figure, I have to answer it. This can cause work to impose on one's life all the time. Luckily, I work a shit job for $8.50/hr and my boss rarely calls me. One day, however, I will have a good job and I will probably be forced to deal with harassing calls from my superiors wherever it is I am trying to not think about work.

Mann, Charles C. "A Remote Control for Your Life." MIT Technology Review, 2004.

In his article General Characteristics of Crowds, Gustav LeBon discusses how individuals change within a crowd, creating a crowd mind that is more than the sum or average of their collective personalities.

"[T]he fact that they have been transformed into a crowd puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manor quite different from that in which each individual of them would feel, think , and act were he in a state of isolation." (LeBon, 122)

An excellent example of this sort of change are soccer hooligans. 1 2 3 I was first introduced to this violent manifestation of the crowd several years ago when living in England. I was very surprised to hear my relatives, who were not normally violent people, talking about fights after soccer games and what can only be called hooliganism. After watching several television programs on this phenomenon, I came to realize that many hooligans were lawyers, businessmen, and other productive members of the community. It seemed strange to me that otherwise peaceful people could change so much so easily. Perhaps LeBon's theory explains it.

LeBon, Gustav. "General Characteristics of Crowds--Psychological Law of Their Mental Utility."

In a recent interview 1, 2, 3 on Fox News, former President Bill Clinton ripped interviewer Chris Wallace a new one for asking what he believed to be a loaded question. This event gained national attention in the days that followed as a series of pundits, politicians, and commentators each gave their own spin on Clinton's response. The reactions by the media tended to take three general forms, democrat-humorous 1 2, democrat-factual, and republican-slanderous 1 2. It provided an excellent microsm for what American political commentary has degenerated to.

Keith Olberman, acting as media spokesman for the democrats, offers a strong, factual rebuttal to the conservative slander campaign. However, it is a very one-sided response; he does not offer any criticisms of Clinton, nor does he offer any praise for Bush. Perhaps this was not an ideal opportunity for a true discussion of the important issues that America faces, but then when will there be? In the face of slanderous right-wing punditry, in which the real issues at hand are ignored, distorted, or spun until the truth becomes impossible to discern amongst all the bullshit, is it even possible for proper journalism to get to the masses?

The problem is that pundits like Ann Coulteur ignore the real issue and instead drop to the level of name-calling, as she did by labelling Clinton "a horny hick," making the discussion about personalities rather than issues. And it works. The last five years have shown us that dropping the level of debate to that of the school-yard is an effective way to push a political perspective in contemporary America. The clips above are excellent examples of how right-wing 'journalists' can talk about a subject endlessly while never actually saying anything of substance about it. This unfortunately creates an environment of base partisanship, in which political parties are defended at all costs while actual issues are left undebated. In a political culture such as this, lying is the norm.

This is why comedy shows such as the John Stewart Show and the Colbert report hold so much appeal. They realize that the whole political discourse on cable television is a joke. This is why they get such good ratings. This is why they often come closer to the truth. and this is why more people probably saw John Stewart and Ann Coulter's takes on the Clinton interview than saw Keith Olberman.

First communications assignment
I chose to take the intro to communications course for a number of reasons. I hope to one day be a freelance journalist and I feel that studying communication theory will help me in attaining that goal. Also, in our modern society we are constantly bombarded with various forms of communication, from television, print and radio to telephones, cars and the internet. I hope to use this course to better understand how these forces affect both myself and society. Finally, I think that I will eventually go into politics, and, if I am to do that, I must improve my communication skills, which this class should help me do.
I thought that McLuhan's ideas of hot and cool media were very interesting. An excellent example of a modern mix of these two forms is MSN. While in many ways a hot media, because the sender can write down precisely what they want to say, it is also a cool media, because of the use of graphics to display a concept or an idea. When I write to a friend and add in a picture of Napoleon Dynamite dancing they know that i am happy, while if I were to send a picture of someone vomitting, they they would know that I am unhappy. This makes for a mix of ancient hieroglyphics with more modern linear alphabets, to form what is today cutting-edge communication.
I do, however, have an issue with some of Harold Innis's ideas of communication determinism. Although I am in many ways a Marxist, another determinist school, I have issues with any theory that offers up one simple cause for major historical change. This is a problem that I run into often, as various social scientists attempt to apply history to their theories. As a history student, I can't help but feel these simplistic analyses of historical change are lacking in depth. To say that the French Revolution was caused by the printing press is one such over-simplification. For sure the printing press helped in the development of nationalism and its use of mechanization was important in the development of an industrial bourgeoisie, but it was not the only factor. The printing was created more than 200 hundred years before the French Revolution, and it was used to write pamphlets for many other purposes than revolutionary propaganda. Remember, the first document off the presses was the Guttenburg Bible. While I think that the idea that developments in communication affect society and can even be a major factor in causing change, they are certainly not the only factor.

McLuhan, Marshall. "Playboy Interview." By Eric McLuhan and Frank Zingrone. Playboy 1995. 17-40.

Innis, Harold. "Minerva's Owl." Presidential Address to the Royal Society of Canada, 1947. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. 1-15.

Alright! I have successfully created my first blog. Although I am required to write this for my communications class, I think that it might actually be kinda fun. I am very opinionated and, as anyone who knows me already knows, I love to share those opinions with whomever will listen. Sometimes they don't even have to listen and I'll still keep talkin