Sunday, May 07, 2006
the Daily Howler: fascinating analysis
It's often said that a democracy depends on an informed electorate, and Americans have been poorly served by ours. While it has become fairly common to expect politicians to lie, we still depend on the press to accurately report and dig out the truth. During the last election I paid closer-than-normal attention, and using the internet got a very different perspective than ever before. One resource which I turned to again and again was the Daily Howler for its analysis of the press.
For example, there are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic]. Their baseless attacks on Presidential candidate John Kerry were given wide play in the press, and undoubtedly undermined the combat veteran's chances to persuade more voters to give him their support. How did the nation's press handle this affair? They published the reckless charges without analysis, and barely followed up on the factual counter-claims. In the minds of many Americans, the mud slung by one side was to be considered equal to historical truth, in part because the press wouldn't distinguish between the two.
The pattern was established years before. You would have thought that Al Gore would be a shoo-in for election in 2000 as part of a team that had brought this country to incredible levels of prosperity and security. But there was a fly in the ointment: the nation's press. By the time the election rolled around a years-long war had already been waged against the Vice-President that undermined his credibility in the minds of many voters. Had the press done its job with integrity and honor the outcome might have been very different, for America and the whole world.
And the sad part is, this is the supposedly liberal press we're talking about. The press used to be considered a watch-dog for the people, but I guess it's up to the people to keep a close eye on the press.
For example, there are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic]. Their baseless attacks on Presidential candidate John Kerry were given wide play in the press, and undoubtedly undermined the combat veteran's chances to persuade more voters to give him their support. How did the nation's press handle this affair? They published the reckless charges without analysis, and barely followed up on the factual counter-claims. In the minds of many Americans, the mud slung by one side was to be considered equal to historical truth, in part because the press wouldn't distinguish between the two.
The pattern was established years before. You would have thought that Al Gore would be a shoo-in for election in 2000 as part of a team that had brought this country to incredible levels of prosperity and security. But there was a fly in the ointment: the nation's press. By the time the election rolled around a years-long war had already been waged against the Vice-President that undermined his credibility in the minds of many voters. Had the press done its job with integrity and honor the outcome might have been very different, for America and the whole world.
And the sad part is, this is the supposedly liberal press we're talking about. The press used to be considered a watch-dog for the people, but I guess it's up to the people to keep a close eye on the press.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
unmasking plato and socrates
One of the things I'm intrigueed by is philosophy. How do things work, what do people believe, why do they think that, and what are the implications of those ideas? Probably even more interested than I thought, as I discovered when I was in college and after just taking the classes that intrigued me for a while found myself with a BA in Philosophy.
While at the library the other day (we've got an excellent library in this town), cruising the stacks for somthing new to read, I stumbled across a book called Plato Unmasked by Keith Quincy. The author teaches philosophy and has condensed all of Plato's dialogues to what he considers their essentials. Quncy says that this is the only course he teaches which he's had to break up a fist-fight among students. He also includes their fictional context as well as the historical.
Now Socrates is the grand old man of western philosophy, considered a good man, a wise man, a sort of comic figure really whose story becomes tragic when he is unjustly executed by the citizens of Athens for his relentless search for Truth (which makes them uncomfortable). Most of what we know about Socrates comes from either his critics or from his student Plato, because he himself did not write out anything defining his own method or conclusions.
Plato often catches heat for his infatuation of the rival city-state Sparta, which was a stark contrast to the democracy of Athens. Sparta was a city that was more a military camp than a city, with roving squads of death squads terrorizing the lower caste. Meanwhile Athens was a commercial and cultural magnet for the whole region. One wonders why Plato didn't abandon the Athens he despised for the Sparta he praised so lavishly?
But the reservations many hold toward Plato because of this does not rub off on Socrates, who Plato uses as a mouth-piece for that uncritical admiration. Loveable, roly-poly Socrates can't be a bad man. But Athens hardly knew the nest of vipers its open society fostered.
In this historical context, Socrates is not the benign and wise figure Plato makes him out to be. Throughout the book the author points up the many places in the dialogues where the anti-democratic ideas are shown in a favorable light while the defenders of democracy are smeared and belittled. It seems the tactics of today's politicians have a long history to the very dawn of recorded history.
In fact, many of Socrates's students conspired against democratic Athens in favor of fascistic Sparta (or at least remaking Athens along the lines of the Spartan model). Opponents to the takeover were killed by the hundreds, many more went into exile. The famous Spartan army was called in to help suppress Athenian resistance to the coup. Socrates himself was recruited to help murder his fellow citizens.
Conspiracy, murder, betrayal, revolution, assassination-- who knew Greek philosophy could get so juicy? Reading the book makes me realize that philosophy cannot be understood without the political context that nourishes it.
While at the library the other day (we've got an excellent library in this town), cruising the stacks for somthing new to read, I stumbled across a book called Plato Unmasked by Keith Quincy. The author teaches philosophy and has condensed all of Plato's dialogues to what he considers their essentials. Quncy says that this is the only course he teaches which he's had to break up a fist-fight among students. He also includes their fictional context as well as the historical.
Now Socrates is the grand old man of western philosophy, considered a good man, a wise man, a sort of comic figure really whose story becomes tragic when he is unjustly executed by the citizens of Athens for his relentless search for Truth (which makes them uncomfortable). Most of what we know about Socrates comes from either his critics or from his student Plato, because he himself did not write out anything defining his own method or conclusions.
Plato often catches heat for his infatuation of the rival city-state Sparta, which was a stark contrast to the democracy of Athens. Sparta was a city that was more a military camp than a city, with roving squads of death squads terrorizing the lower caste. Meanwhile Athens was a commercial and cultural magnet for the whole region. One wonders why Plato didn't abandon the Athens he despised for the Sparta he praised so lavishly?
But the reservations many hold toward Plato because of this does not rub off on Socrates, who Plato uses as a mouth-piece for that uncritical admiration. Loveable, roly-poly Socrates can't be a bad man. But Athens hardly knew the nest of vipers its open society fostered.
In this historical context, Socrates is not the benign and wise figure Plato makes him out to be. Throughout the book the author points up the many places in the dialogues where the anti-democratic ideas are shown in a favorable light while the defenders of democracy are smeared and belittled. It seems the tactics of today's politicians have a long history to the very dawn of recorded history.
In fact, many of Socrates's students conspired against democratic Athens in favor of fascistic Sparta (or at least remaking Athens along the lines of the Spartan model). Opponents to the takeover were killed by the hundreds, many more went into exile. The famous Spartan army was called in to help suppress Athenian resistance to the coup. Socrates himself was recruited to help murder his fellow citizens.
Conspiracy, murder, betrayal, revolution, assassination-- who knew Greek philosophy could get so juicy? Reading the book makes me realize that philosophy cannot be understood without the political context that nourishes it.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
under construction
