Monthly Archives: May 2012

BB #2 – Lamestream Miberal Nedia

At some point the phrase, “liberal media,” became part of the accepted public dialog.

Perhaps “accepted” isn’t the correct word, as some have taken the tack that, “No, this statement is false, the media isn’t liberal at all. Here’s proof…”  I have never found their arguments convincing, although obviously I have my own bias on the situation.  For purposes of this Brain Bubble, I’m going to take it as given that, as a rule, the media really does lean left (for common definitions of “media” and “left”).

In any event, the concept, the meme, is known, understood, whether you grant its premise or not. And I think you tend to find agreement on both sides that the media really is liberal (with some notable exceptions).  On the right, of course, the liberal label is a club, a weapon of attack. On the left, we find both apologists and deniers; there are deniers on the (supposedly) neutral ground as well.

The Vice-President recently cited the TV show, Will & Grace, so I’ll just use W&G (also known as “WaG“) as Exhibit One. And before W&G there was Ellen, and even earlier Northern Exposure.  And that’s just a single segment among many liberal points of view. Television, that daily invader of our conscious lives, brings many such segments. There are conservative segments as well, but they tend to lie in current events channels rather than in entertainment channels.  Even Fox serves very different sectors between its programming for young entertainment and its programming for, say, Fox News.

So assume the premise is correct, at least in terms of the main content most people watch. Hollywood is a nest of liberal lefties.

But people rarely seem to ask, “Well, why is that?”  Maybe there’s something to be learned in the question. Or in the answer.  (Or maybe the answer would make the question moot, and that’s why people tend to avoid asking, “Why?”  They might have to accept the conclusion!)

The idea that one side “won” and somehow ended up with the lion’s share of “the media” is silly. The “media” evolves constantly; new shows arrive in a steady stream. If anything, all those rich corporations and money-holders should have “won.”  The media, after all, is owned by huge corporations.  (Think of it: the infrastructure owned by money and power, but the content created by lefties and liberals. A marriage of convenience if there ever was one.)

No, the Media is liberal because it consists (generally) of educated, experienced (world-wise) people who are more prone to see a bigger, connected picture of the world than someone with a more narrow education or background. A broad education tends to make one a progressive thinker. Once you see the big picture, you tend to lean left (or so goes my theory).  I would go further to say that once ones eduction is both broad and deep, progressive (liberal) thinking is almost a certainty.

It’s interesting to wonder if, as the corporations become stronger and stronger, will the media become more puppet-like? Is corporate ownership the real reason CNN has become useless and irrelevant? I’ve mentioned before that MSNBC TV has become, to my mind, as big a joke on the left as is Fox News on the right. Is it because their corporate masters can not afford insightful, real news? I can’t help but wonder. All I know for sure is that none of them are watchable any more.

Here’s the real question: As cable  TV in general fades away, replaced by the interweb, what—if any—bias will the interweb show? The interweb offers something society has never seen before in terms of its sheer scale and volume. It provides a vox populi platform the likes of which history has never seen. It’s already affecting society in big ways; those changes have only just begun.

Finally: Is the interweb self-selecting? The internet was. A certain level of technical skill was required, and early on access was restricted. The early internet was semi-difficult to “read” (get data from) and very difficult to search or “write” (put data into). Now it’s all trivial. Writing data to the collective public mass is trivial and searching is easy. Anyone can get on the interweb!

So now, increasingly, we’re all here.  That’s something new under the sun!


SF: Distress by Greg Egan

It’s official, I really like science fiction author Greg Egan!

Egan is among the modern science fiction authors; his first SF work, the short story Artifact, was published in 1983, so he’s been writing SF for about 28 years. Like many science fiction authors with a science or technical education, he writes non-fiction as well.

And here’s the thing: If you like your science fiction hard, you want to know about Greg Egan! He writes SF as hard as any I know. For instance, consider a novel (Incandescence) in which a key plot thread involves alien beings discovering (Einstein’s) General Relativity in a completely different way than Einstein did. He reminds me of Hal Clement on several levels, particularly so in the novel I just cited, as part of it is told from the aliens’ point of view (a common device in Clement’s work).

According to Wikipedia, Clement was the “leader of the hard science fiction sub-genre.” I would go along with that. There was a lesser-known author, George O. Smith, who wrote some extremely hard SF back in the day of radio tubes (the 40s). Venus Equilateral, a collection of short stories, is a must-read if you’re a high-tech SF fan, especially if you have any background in radio or electronics. Communications in space. With radio tubes! But I digress. My point is that Greg Egan could easily be the modern leader of hard SF.

And while I’ve only read two of his novels, a couple short stories and parts of his website, I’m hooked. It’s not just the ultra-hard SF; I like his writing and his characters, and I really like his ideas. Some of his stories involve alternate realities with different physics than ours. Others involve extremely advanced civilizations far in the future (for example, when we’ve conquered the galaxy and transcended our physical bodies to live as software).

Recently I read his novel, Distress. It was so engaging I read the entire 454 pages in one day (even missed the start of the ballgame). It’s hard not to get hooked on a novel that begins:

“All right. He’s dead. Go ahead and talk to him.”

That’s an opening that begs for explanation!

It turns out that the mystery behind those lines only serves to introduce the story’s main character. This opening scene involves a bit of science fiction that doesn’t have much direct connection with the main plot; it’s not unlike the opening scene of any James Bond movie.

Yet the level of hard science detail and imagination behind this “throw away” scene is impressive, and it’s what makes Egan’s work so attractive to geeks such as I.

I’m not going to explore the book’s plot; you can get a bit of that from its Wikipedia article (admittedly a scant description) or from Mr. Egan’s site (which also doesn’t have much plot detail). Better yet, just read it and let it unfold.  The Wiki article does at least touch on that this book is no mere adventure. As with all really good science fiction, the adventure is just wallpaper to the social commentary.

For one example, in the novel’s future there are five recognized genders among humans, and Egan introduces the neo-pronouns ve, ver and vis (for he, she, her and his) to accommodate gender-free speech.  I couldn’t help but remember a high school English teacher who offered the class an instant A for the year to anyone who could  come up with decent, useable gender-free pronouns.  I wonder if he would have accepted Egan’s?

There are some other parts of the book I want to mention. The first concerns the role of technology in modern society:

“It was a technical advance worth communicating, worth explaining, worth demystifying. … Once people ceased to understand how the machines around them actually functioned, then the world they inhabited began to dissolve into an incomprehensible dreamscape. Technology moved beyond control, beyond discussion, evoking only worship or loathing, dependence or alienation. Arthur C. Clarke had suggested that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic…”

While the novel takes place in the future, many people today have no idea how most of the technology that fills their world actually works. No idea at all. It’s not like having some vague idea about how a car engine works (and I imagine many people don’t). It’s seeing your cell phone or computer or TV as—literally—indistinguishable from a magical device.

Another part I want to remember considers the difference between religious and scientific pursuit. A character poses the question, ‘If modern human culture was wiped out, and the human race had to start fresh, what kinds of religious and scientific structures would be build?” That character goes on to suggest that the religious structures would likely differ considerably from those today. One proof of this might be the differences among modern and past religions.  On the other hand, the scientific structures would likely be very similar to what we have today. Mathematics, for example, is a universal language once the meanings behind the specific symbols are communicated.

The author’s point, obviously, is that science is based on the real world, and therefore all scientific structure converges on that reality. Religious structures, however, are deemed purely social inventions, and their structure depends on local social viewpoints.

If we do live in a godless universe, then the above is certainly true.  If we don’t, then one presumes that religious structures would tend to converge on their reality.  And by one account, you can argue they do: As I’ve mentioned before, all religions seem to me to share the twin ideas that (a) there is more to life than all this and (b) what you do in life, how you are, matters.  I might also argue the human tendencies to feel love and awe also reveal the fingerprint of something mystical.

Regardless, science does have the important and progressive feature of converging on the real world over time. Eventually phlogiston and epicycles and mysterious Pioneer accelerations reveal their incorrectness. It turns out that neutrinos do not go faster than light (not that anyone actually thought they did)!

Egan’s background in science gives his work a solid hard-sf foundation that I love. As I mentioned above, Incandescence deals with the invention of General Relativity! How cool is that?  (If you’re an über-geek, it’s mega-cool, even giga-cool.)  Distress involves the discovery of the “TOE” (Theory Of Everything) and what happens when you discover such a thing.

I will say that in the final chapters the scope of the book expands in a way that I have a little trouble with. Just not a fan of that sort of thing, I guess. Still, for any hard-sf fan, Distress, and Egan’s work in general: Two Thumbs Up!


I’m Back! (I Think)

You know how, if you don’t visit or call someone regularly, sometimes the longer you haven’t connected the harder it is to will yourself into connecting again?  It’s been that way with this blog.  I haven’t posted in a while, and the longer it goes, the harder it is to return. I’m not strapped for the ideas or the desire or even the time; it’s something else that makes sitting down to write a lesser option.

Maybe I just have a huge inertia quotient, but I do find I get “stuck” in doing—or not doing—a thing.  It can be hard for me to will a transition; it seems better somehow, or maybe just easier, to keep doing whatever I’m doing. Or not doing. If I get really into something, be it reading a book or doing some work task, stopping to eat or sleep seems so inconvenient, so inefficient.

Fortunately, one can eat and drink while reading or working. I haven’t managed to do those things while sleeping though.

In any event, it’s been quite a while since my last post—almost half a year. A lot of life turmoil kind of got me off blogging, and the longer I was off, the harder it got to return to it.  As I mentioned before, after that last bit of dead air, it’s like the old hammer joke.

“Why are you hitting yourself on the head with a hammer?”
“Because it feels so good when I stop!”

It felt good to stop blogging.  At the same time, it felt bad.

One thing I know interferes is wanting each article to turn out perfectly. Yet it seems that every time I go back and re-read what I’ve posted I find typos and grammos and other noise in the signal. The OCD in me has a hard time with that! It’s discouraging.  It calls to mind a True Rule about computer programming:

The number of proof reads required is always N+1, where N is the actual number performed. This rule holds regardless of the value of N.

I suppose it applies to writing in general.  The bugs always find a way to avoid detection.  It may be that Heisenberg or Gödel is involved.  It wouldn’t surprise me, especially if the universe really is a mathematical illusion.

Another source of interference is that, as I mentioned last time, I find I must re-think my topics and material. A lot of what I used to write about, the technical stuff, is covered elsewhere far better. My thought now is to go the more traditional blogging route of treating this essentially as a public diary. (The word, “blog,” does come from “web log” after all.)  The counter-balance is that I’m kind of a private person (on some levels, anyway), so I need to find a voice and tone that suits me.

Work has been an energy and morale sink in the last year or two, and that has drained my will to write.  I plan to retire in about a year, and I suspect my presence on the web, both in my own blogs and on others, will increase greatly.  In the meantime, I’m going to try to write as casually as possible just to keep writing. The result may not be very enjoyable, but it’s not like I have a vast readership to disappoint!  (As far as I can tell, I have no readers at all!)

One last rant: I find that in some ways I’m tired. I’m tired of my own opinions, and that I have grown weary of other people’s opinions.  I’ve developed a keen appreciation in the last few years for the old adage about opinions and assholes (we all have them, they all stink, and while you might think yours doesn’t small quite so bad, it does—you are just used to your own stench).  I’ve been online a long time—since the mid 80s—and I find in some ways I have just kind of talked myself out.

And yet, in those moments away from the keyboard I often find myself writing articles in my head. And it can be very hard to read some comment threads without chiming in. (But many decades of experience have taught me the futility of helpfully instructing others on the errors in their thinking or the falseness of their beliefs. Really kind of a pity, as I could have helped so many people. ;-) )

So, bottom line, you’re stuck with me, and I—apparently—am stuck with y’all!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 318 other followers