Sharpening my knife
I cheated and only did the math section, so I’m sure my practice score is inflated, but… I scored 790! Yeah baby, that’s 94th %tile (72nd %tile among econ phd’s).
I pulled it off with a time management strategy. Kids, if your taking the test, do the first 8 math questions in less than 15, the next 12 questions in the next 15 minutes and then use the rest of the time to do the last 8 questions.
BTW, the big test is tomorrow morning.
Lessig says that you can bend the truth, but “only in one way”. The two ways implied: Republican/Democrat or conservative/liberal and that the “one way” is pro-Republican/conservative. He’s implying that these issues are examples of Republican/conservatives bending the truth and that that is luxury the Democrat/liberals are not afforded. It’s assumed that to air the “loose with the facts” Lynch movie is a pro-Republican/conservative and therefore anti-Democrat/liberal. Similarly, to not air the “loose with the facts” Reagan movie is anti-Democrat/liberal and therefore pro-Republican/conservative.
Unfortunately, there is no such symmetry in the issues of Lynch and Reagan. In fact, neither should be described as a Republican versus Democrat issue. To run the Lynch movie, NBC is taking a pro-government position (against the will of Lynch herself). This is an interesting case in the power dynamic between the public and private sectors. To not run the Reagan movie, CBS is kowtowing to Republican pressures. This issue exemplifies special interest politics. The issues are, mostly, orthogonal and neither has much to do with partisanship (the Lynch movie much less so than the Reagan movie).
It’s important to make this distinction because you would have seen the same outcome who ever was leading the government and whoever the movies were made about. Imagine Gore in office, just having prosecuted a war in Iraq in which a hapless Private Lynch is rescued. His government would be just as inclined to ‘talk up’ that story as a Bush government. Certainly, if the Republicans would have been just as likely to protest the Reagan movie no matter which party is in office. Furthermore, you can imagine similar protests from Democrats if an unfavorable movie regarding FDR or Carter were to be made.
I’d say that the only coincidence between these two stories is that fact that they happened at about the same time and they don’t suggest some greater conspiracy or social/political imbalance.
Lessig’s simplistic, and false, dichotomy is useful only for spreading a sort of cancerous cynicism. Namely, Democrat/liberals are victims of a vast right wing conspiracy to silence their opinions. That cynicism should remain in the hands of defiant first-ladies, California governors with their backs against the wall and paranoid presidential hopefuls (longshots?). I would think Lessig and his ilk would be above such things.
Lessig, I ask you please to agree or disagree with the actions of the networks and add substance to the debate. You’re intellect and wisdom are wasted on empty rhetorical attacks.
People are to be trusted. They are innately capable and each has the potential for intelligence and wisdom. Of course, not everybody chooses to fulfill this potential, but I have a strong bias that says that that potential exists nevertheless.
Language is power. We’ve discovered rhetorical devices to exploit its power. Repetition of ideas and alliteration hammer words into our head. Metaphor and simile attempt to trick us into believing something strange is familiar.
It is interesting to know of these devices, but it is exploitive to use these devices in practice. Language should be dry, objective. In contructing sentences, paragraphs, statements and speeches we must separate the wheat from the chaff and only communicate function rather than form. To pretty up language or to use rhetorical devices that play to the emotions of the audience, is to commit sin against the unassuming (ignorant, victimized, lowly, etc) populace. Guard your speech, young man! Watch your metaphor and was that alliteration?
Is it cynical to use these devices (see here towards the bottom of the page)? How can it not be? People are stupid sheep that can’t be trusted to think for themselves. Right?
As a business man, lazy, I produce and market things. In doing so, I think about my audience (my customers), consider what ideas and words excite them, that will get them interested in my product. It’s common to use the ‘groups of three’ device. All the features of our product are described with three adjectives. I do this so I can exploit our customers (or potential customers) gullibility to the use of such cynical language… Or wait. No, I’m just using the language like everyone else. Do I lie? No. Am I being purposefully dishonest, or better stated, purposefully not 100% truthful, when I use language in marketing? Yes, but consider the source. I know that there are competitors out there telling different stories, that the customer has their own preformed opinion and there’s a multitude of other sources to allow the customer to come to their own conclusion. I have to tell the story that puts my point of view in the best light. Truly, to do otherwise, would be disingenuous.
In a sense, in addition to selling my product, I’m selling a story. For the consumer market, selling a story is called lifestyle marketing. In my business (selling technology to other business), selling the story is selling the promise that my technology will reduce costs, increase revenue and therefore increase profits. The degree to which customers ‘buy’ my story is the likelihood that they’ll buy by product.
Can we get past the “post-modern” realization about these meta-truths of language? Do we use this knowledge or do we just acknowledge it and continue in our pre-”post-modern” naivetè? Just because I know using suggestive language will influence my audience, does that mean that I can’t use it?
It’s funny see partisan’s “discover” that the other side is using such devices. They’re surprised by such disingenuity, given how genuine their language is. Get over it. We all use these techniques.
Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” is NOT advocating against the use of rhetorical devices. His advise is simply restated in books like Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. He’s arguing for an economy of language not for a poverty of language.
If you believe people can be trusted and they do have the potential to be intelligent in their decision making, then it is not cynical to use devises of language. If you believe that there should be a multiplicity of ideas and that society should be a marketplace of ideas, you wouldn’t be intimidated by the use of this language but one or two “lazy” marketers or politicians. The audience, customers or voters, can decide what to believe.
This analysis is interesting. I can’t add much to the 2d vs 1d debate, but I find the table of bloggers interesting for a different reason. It’s a great resource for finding new and interesting blogs to read!
There are my close neighbors: Aunty Goob, Ernest Miller, Steve Gilham and Will Cox. I’ll check these out when I’m feeling lonely.
And for when I’m looking for a contrarian pov, I’ll head to my polar opposites: Russell Arben Fox and The Plainsman.
I installed the Google Deskbar. And I’ve taken Evan’s advice and created “BlogThis!” custom search.
All the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and the whole temple of Mans achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.
- Bertrand Russel
I’ll stop hating Dean now. I like his “I meant to start a conversation about race, but went about it the wrong way” approach, but he’ll have to convince me that he’s not bigoted before I’ll go back to my plan to switch parties.
Ok, the argument that the questioner was making was essentially “I don’t like your policy.” If that is the point she was making, what is Wolfowitz to infer from the out-in-left-field comment about the policies of administrations of yesteryear regarding Iraq?
Why would she dislike a policy that seems to be in line with her opinion of Iraq circa the 80s? Either she, for reasons untold, switched positions on Suddam’s regime after the US change its policy towards Iraq, or she holds opinions that are contrary to her government’s for the sake of being contrary. Without an explanation about her flip-flop on the Iraq issue, we can assume the second is true. Thus Wolfowitz’ reasoned response, “It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies.” She must hate this country.
I was going to switch parties (I’m registered Green) and become a Democrat so I could vote for Dean in the 2004 primary… Not now ’cause Dean screwed up
