Do You Know Who Is Watching You?

Many of you love Facebook, and Facebook loves you, but maybe a little too much. Facebook keeps an archived copy of anything you put up, including photos and "wall" messages, so even if you take it down, Facebook still has it. Also, simply deactivating your account will not remove your profile. Instead, you must call a customer service center and tell them you want to delete your profile. Clearly, Facebook resorts to this twentieth-century technology only to provide an inconvenience to their twenty-first century customers. Through its Beacon program, Facebook also shares the web sites you visit with those in your social network. Although it now asks your permission to do so, not all users realize what they are asked to opt out of.

The other day, I mentioned Total (or Terrorism) Information Awareness (TIA), a federal program that Congress shut down in 2004, yet it lives on in various guises. TIA was a project of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency) and was made possible by the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act of 2001. This act was supposed to "sunset" (i.e., end) after four years, but instead was reauthorized in March of 2006. This act generates a lot of debate between those who believe it is a necessary tool to keep us safe and others who believe it is not only ineffective at keeping us safe, but it also unfairly invades our privacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/technology/11facebook.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/technology/30face.html

http://epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0223nj1.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0303/p01s03-uspo.html

Elephants and Donkeys

With the primary campaign season racing past us, there is a lot of information to sort out and a lot of spin to unwind.  If you are unfamiliar with the nominating process, CNN has clear and accurate explanations of how Republicans and Democrats choose their presidential nominees. A consistently confusing part of the process is the role of delegates--What are they?  Who are they?  How do they function differently for Democrats and Republicans?  This CNN site should clear things up for you.  It's helpful, too, to have a good clearinghouse of opinion, analysis, and data like Real Clear Politics.  If you're not sure what to believe, check out Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania that places sound bites, opinion polls, and statistics in their proper contexts.  

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's withdrawal from the race may seem like a concession to John McCain, but it might be more important for McCain that Mike Huckabee stay in the race.  Nevertheless, Saturday's results (as well as this interview) suggest Huckabee isn't going to roll over for McCain.  On the Democratic side, pundits have identified Latino voters as the group that will decide the nominee, but these observers falsely assume this group will clearly side with one candidate.  In the Los Angeles Times, a young Latina voter shows how complicated things can be even within one family.   

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/path.presidency/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

http://www.factcheck.org

http://www.newsweek.com/id/109591

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/long-live-huckabee/

http://www.alternet.org/election08/76201/

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-munoz2feb02,0,1138667.story

Incandescence

Imagine if every room you stepped into was cast in the same light as your classrooms, or Wal-Mart?  In December, Congress set new energy-efficiency standards that, between 2012 and 2014, will phase out the incandescent light bulb.   In a recent essay, writer Ron Rosenbaum complains that such a change will destroy our capacity to see things as they really are.  But he also uses this development as an opportunity to sing praises to Thomas Edison's invention. Both a rant and a paean,  Rosenbaum's piece is a classic example of rear-guard thinking.  As you read the essay, notice his use of emotional, logical, and ethical appeals to make a persuasive case for the beauty of incandescent light and the ugliness of fluorescent light.  At stake for Rosenbaum is nothing less than our human capacity for happiness.  While Rosenbaum may be overreacting a bit (flourescent lighting does come in a range of colors), it is fun to read sentences like these:  "Fluorescents seem specially designed to drain life and beauty from the world. Don't kid yourself if you hope Hell is lit by fire. More likely fluorescents....Don't get me wrong, this is not a plea for Ye Olde Times, for gaslight and quill pens. It's just a plea not to take for granted the way we illuminate our world....A lamp fitted with an incandescent bulb and dim translucent shades casts a lovely, painterly glow on human faces, while the light of fluorescents recalls a meat locker."  

Cars, Cars, Cars

Cars are around us all the time, but unless we're riding in an uncomfortable one, we don't think much about them.  The coverage in the national daily papers of the North American International Auto Show in Detroit gives us a chance to reflect on our relationship with this changing piece of technology.  Part of the fun of reading about new vehicles comes from the great writing that is inspired by well-designed cars.  The best American writer on cars is Dan Neil, who writes the Rumble Seat column for the Los Angeles Times.  (Scroll down and click on the car reviews link.)  He reviews the full range of automobiles, from economy, family, and lifestyle cars to sports, luxury, and super-luxury cars.   Check out this snippet of Neil's writing.  About the meticulously restored 1963 Ferrari Lusso once owned by the late actor Steve McQueen, Neil wrote, "in the Moneterey [California] sunlight, the metallic paint ignites with a pale opalescent fire, shimmering in shades of honey and oxblood....Unlike a modern car that has no scent of machinery about it, the Lusso is delectably perfumed with the smell of leather, fuel and oil. The whiteface gauges are as bright as a Hollywood smile."       

Something Else to Do with Your Cellphones

Here's another piece from the New York Times. This one deals with best selling novels in Japan that were written on cellphones, yet another signal of the end of civilization. Well, maybe it's just a sign that I'm getting old. In any case, it's good to see people interested in telling stories, but it's troublesome to think that the only device they can use to transmit their ideas is a cellphone. Of course, unless you're scrawling letters in dirt with your fingers, technology and written expression go hand in hand. Nevertheless, writing can be such a physical, visceral act that I've always felt the less stuff gets in the way, the better. Using your hands to hold pen and paper, or typing away with all ten fingers, makes a certain amount of physical and mental sense. Using your thumbs to write a novel? Sure, we all write differently, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that these cellphone novels don't pay attention to the development of character, plot, or themes; that is, that such writing ignores the strategies that make good writing worth reading. To many, however, that's exactly why they are popular and worth reading, because they ignore what your teachers tell you is supposed to make a good book. (Just a reminder: we don't tell you what makes a good book; we try to teach you how to reach such conclusions independently.) In any case, this kind of writing strikes me as one more sign that newer technology increasingly facilitates little more than narcissism.

Welcome!

This blog is a revival of one that I tried to maintain (unsuccessfully) when I taught The Art of Criticism in the fall of 2005. I will use this space to comment on my reading and listening and to post links to interesting readings online.

I'll begin with a deftly written piece pointed out to me by Mr. Preston from Friday's New York Times that you can find here. (You may have to register with the Times web site to view the piece.) I am not familiar with the writer, but I hope to read more of his work soon. In the print edition of the newspaper, a little box labeled the piece a "Facilities Review," which hinted at the author's wry take on his subject. The "review" captures the absurd duality of writing about a public toilet (low brow) in the New York Times (high brow). If you read it, post a comment and let me know what you think.

Enjoy!