I take issue with a your point

Dear Anonymous Relative of Mine:

Had a discussion about a Rachel Maddow interview with Tim Phillips that I posted. Don’t know this gal but found the interview worthwhile. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32323918

Okay. I’ll try to address this as briefly as possible. But it won’t be very brief… Sorry.

“Meh, it was an angled interview to begin with.

To say that it was an angled interview, I gather, implies a TV journalist has a editorial position, which seems true. Especially since she goes out of her way to put it in that context at the beginning of the interaction. If, however you’re implying that it wasn’t fair, I’m not certain what rhetorical devices you’re referencing that seem to put her at some advantage. Presumably, it was taped live and there was apparently no editing after the fact. Unlike many similar programs that have a strong editorial flavor, I can’t imagine anyone saying that the Phillips was not given a chance to speak.

The other guy knew that going in and just didn’t care about it.

“The other guy,” Tim Phillips, is individual who for many years has made his living doing political spin. This is not necessarily a negative career path, but it puts them in an entirely different camp when it comes to television interviews. There are boatloads of liberal and conservative mouthpieces out there. Some of them honest and some of them not so honest, and in a land where we value free speech, they have their place. But, it is hard to believe that Phillips is going on there for altruistic purposes. He’s no dummy, as they say. As a spokesperson he can stand toe-to-toe with whomever. So, one might assume that he did “care about it” and was there for a purpose. In short, he is a professional.

The really interesting bit is that for some reason this is news… why is this news? What’s the point behind it?

Whether one agrees with the presuppositions of an argument or not, it strikes me as unreasonable to feel at these charges are not somehow newsworthy. I am fully aware of how often Lindsey Lohan gets drunk, of Britney Spears’ parenting skills, and the Paris Hilton’s abilities as a young bride. These things are not newsworthy. However, allegations that free speech in multiple town hall meetings—called by one’s political representatives—are being railroaded through the orchestration of corporate-sponsored public-relations groups is of great interest to many Americans who see this as an odd twist, and the ever twisting discussion of the freedom of speech.

The Magna Carta indicated that freedom of speech was a pretty big deal in 1215; the French sort of dropped the ball when they celebrated free speech during the French Revolution and then killed lots of people, and of course there was a group of white guys who decided to make it not the second or the third, but the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Noam Chomsky, noted linguist, smart guy, old crank said something along the lines of… freedom of speech means the freedom for others to say what you don’t like. Which really most of these guys alluded to.

If the allegations are wrong and these town hall meetings are all being interrupted, shouted down, and broken up by individuals who have all spontaneously adopted identical practices and methods then clearly Rachel Maddow has no ground to stand on. But for a liberal television editorialist I would be rather surprised if she didn’t:

a.) Feel that this was newsworthy and

b.) Arrive at the conclusion that this isn’t wholly spontaneous.

And you will definitely have your own opinion on this, but I believe will be hard to support the idea that this is not news.

 

When you start asking these questions the answers all point to the same thing… smoke screen.

Now at this point in your argument, I’m afraid that you lose me. I have heard the turn of phrase used by different groups recently. But it’s an odd expression. Because as a metaphor it seems to state that the discussion is being obfuscated somehow by an unrelated element. At least that is what I take the idiom, a smokescreen, to mean. Whether the conclusion that matter how has drawn is accurate or not, debating the organic nature of the argument seems a reasonable question.

And this may not be a very good analogy. But when unions were trying to form in individual coal plants across the country, strikebreakers were bussed in from different areas as the big guns with a company. The thought was, locals may not be too mean to locals. However, professionals with bats would make short work of noncommittal strikers. Bussing in these strikebreakers, and these were not the only people trying to stop the strike, change the complexion of the interaction dramatically. Whether you believe this is happening or not it’s an important argument.

Reason being, if the representative is trying to have a meeting with his/her own constituents and even five people are there trying to use abrasive tactics to derail a conversation then it changes the climate, the candor, and the culture. When Marshall McLuhan said that the media is the message he had a point.

If certain media can get the public to buy into a mob style accusation technique then they won’t see what’s really going on in the other hand.

Once again, I won’t say your point is indefensible, but it does strike me as a non sequitur. There are media outlets that are notably conservative. There are media outlets that are notably liberal. There are even some media outlets that tend to be down the middle. We all understand that. News outlets don’t have to fabricate items to create information that is appropriate for their demographic. All they need do is hire people who are themselves conservative or liberal or what have you. I don’t know that this is good or bad but it is historically so, and certainly true now.

In fact, if it’s spun just right they will welcome whatever suggested solution by said media as gospel truth without personally analyzing it themselves.

I gather this is the “masses-are-asses” argument that is hard to completely disregard, but is also the logic in having a more representative form of government than truly democratic. And, to be honest, I’m not certain where I come down on this argument. However, if it is true for geese it is true for ganders. Furthermore if your argument is that people are easily led, that does seem to be the argument that Rachel Maddow is advancing as well. In both cases I see it as a discussion of the human condition, rather than a commentary on worthwhile journalism.

The facts back up the president of the company in question in this case.

Without trying to be exhaustive here, I will mention that the facts, in so far as we are discussing factual information and not interpretations of the same, don’t seem to back up either group. Her claim seem to be that having multiple fronts, like Patients United Now, or Patients First, for the mother ship called Americans for Prosperity, which has ties to many corporations is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. His response is “yes we take money from them, and we welcome more. Our goals and mission are not influenced by those who give us cash.” Neither of these people seems to be debating these facts. This is public knowledge because these kind of institutions must report their cash stream and affiliations.

She points out that in their literature they refer to themselves as “patients like us,” which seen this rather misleading since this is not being written by a group of hospital patients who got together because they were a little steamed, rather it’s being written by a heavily funded media juggernaut that is run by some very shrewd individuals.

She goes on to point out that there is a noticeable gap in online resume. Which item, he does not argue. Once again it seems the facts presented are not in question. He worked with Century Strategies and they admittedly targeted “faith based “communities to lobby for energy deregulation. This does not strike me as a small oversight. Further you will note this person does not say that these facts that she presents are untrue. So, once again the facts are not a question. Further since she is offering them up one could assume that they support her claims. Whether one feels that they do or not.

(On a personal note, I feel that lobbyists, while Democratic, are perhaps one of the most negative eventualities of our system. I also feel that if an energy group feels that they will get support from any “community of faith” that while it is legal to lobby their group it is morally bankrupt. Further, as a Christian, regardless of one’s belief in global warming, I find being lobbied by these groups nauseating.)

At this point he calls this “gotcha politics,” which is a catchphrase that has some legs, but in an admittedly adversarial interview, to call foul that she is asking tough questions, without debunking her facts seems a bit timid. It is not politics, it is journalism. Asking fellow media dude hard questions seems like neither, gotcha nor politics. She asks if he feels that she is being unfair. Unlike many in the trade she asks that and he concurs that she is not when pressed.

Even science says if anything is a reality today it’s global cooling rather then warming… which ironically would be combated by becoming “less green.” Not that I’m for a push for more green house gasses, but yet the media would die before admitting fault.”

Well, OK. I’m not tracking very well here. But if you’re saying that the “media” are some kind of ideological bastion I don’t share your opinion.

Here is my logic:

1. Media in America is corporate.
2. Corporations exist to make profit.
3. To make profit media outlets require customers.
4. Therefore media is driven by demographic targets.
5. Conversely an unknown hidden agenda of unity to philosophy seems unlikely

Founding fathers:

These is no universal agreement as to who these guys (gals) were. Who is in and who is out. Further they were not all that similar one to the other in motivation to participate in revolution, in religion or in their opinions on the role of government. Every time I hear the term “founding fathers,” I think I am hearing from someone who has not read what these folks (whoever they include)

If you read early American history… and by this I I’ll reference Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton, the biography of Benjamin Franklin, (there are several that are worthwhile), his Excellency: George Washington by Eliis, Thomas Jefferson ( I don’t remember the author), John Adams by McCullough, and you’ll see without exception how consistently vindictive, outspoken, and libelous the “founding fathers” were. At intervals Washington was above the fray but it’s truly remarkable how these individuals and the newly founded Free Press attacked each other. And they did so using pseudonyms more often than not.(This is not considered out of bounds at that time. They disagreed and seemed to dislike each other more than not. Just like everyone else.

Sincerely kevin

rambling thoughts to lindrum’s daily updated Blog, of which i am so jealous

reply to  sketch vs prototype, sorta

read through much of what you had to say about sketch and prototype and art and choices and I am so interested that I am distracted, which is the common result of reading in areas where I love to spend my brain time. It is not the kid-in-candy-store cliché but more like thirsty man who cannot swim falling in a deep lake. my mind likes to resonate at a certain frequency and that is my frequency, and it almost makes it impossible to reflect in any meaningful way because I am so taken by the myriad responses and directions of responses and the literal and figurative (which are considered binary but are, of course, a continuum) see what I mean, nonsense comes out…

I kid myself that this is indicative of greater thoughts but rather disorganized closets are so because they are over filled, but because they have no shelves. I have no shelves.

OK, so, first shelf: sketch and prototype stuff the list that you share on 5/7 is a series of words that are like a hard rain. keeping with my water metaphor. I have this little paper cup and there are all these words there. golly each one of these words   is a trigger for a thousand words. evocative and evoke, and provocative and provoke, the difference between poking and being poked. it is infer and  imply right? sketches evoke? sketches provoke.. they come unbidden on the best days right? it is like reading a script and seeing the actors come to life in your mind, if that is your muse… Or  seeing a dance when hearing a tune, or painting and poems and so on.. it is not the final thing but it is like the dream of the final thing… didactics is instructive, but not always like Mary Chase in Harvey when she tell her daughter, Myrtle to “stop being didactic, its irritating and men hate it.” Didactic is this great thing where we are telling with a purpose. While “telling” has gotten bad press from constructivists, it is a beautiful thing, and it intention makes it prototypical then? While the “provoked” response makes it reflexive and not “crafted” which word I want to talk about as well…

teaching theater offered me the filter of  choices and constraints. One has a script and a finite set of actors, and a finite budget and within those constraints choices are made. and as I used this reduction it offered itself to writing and design and so on…  But the constraints and choices are not the art, they are the craft.

weaving baskets is a largely technical project because of the constraints and choices available. you have your materials and your method and within that craft you can do well or poorly but it is not because of your art so much as because of your technical skill. Knitting and other ignoble crafts are not the art of imagining but the craft of doing. The art is the dream part right? It is the wishing the conjuring and high end of Bloom where we synthesize.  And the first stuff where we know and comprehend and apply is all the work of the craftsman. The analysis and evaluation are for the drear critics who neither create nor dream. Must take issue with Bloom that this is the far end of the scale, as it is neither art nor craft. It is synthesis that can come from the new but is addressed by Shakespeare better than by Bloom.

So sketch is choices pre-constraint. And prototype is constraint added to choices. Sketch is to create and plug into the art, and prototype is to allow it to be governed by the rules of the craft.

I love Opera as it is a conventionalized meta-art form. Not everything goes. You do not sing off pitch. Certain classic roles are always sung by certain vocal types and there even exists certain ages for certain vocal types accepted. I suppose it is like sumo wrestling which is only enjoyable by those who care about the conventions. But within the conventions that exist are strengths that other forms do not enjoy. In Opera there is a baseline belief that clarity of tone and pitch are necessarily good, or necessary. Volume is now poo pooed by many who hear singing but the thought in opera is that if you have an orchestra and no microphone and you are expressing great joy or agony that you should not have to whisper. IN opera emotion is king and exhilaration and grief are not apologized for but expressed as we feel them . We do not sort of feel agony, and it is not well expressed by some off-pitch folk singer to my mind.

opera has layers and levels of craft that are its accepted constraints. It offers choices within pageantry and tonal quality and years of training that take each technical skill and allows extreme, regal and unequalled expression of the fundamental, archetypal human condition. This is in costume, sets, orchestration, libretto, and performance.

At the end of the day in the conventions of design and pedagogy, which are as confined as other forms, we know the rules still apply. Your art provokes, your rules provide shelving for the art to live on.  Your rules of organization are provide by experience with the human condition. Your prototype is the compromise of your choices with the size of the shelving. Prototypes are the constraints you apply. Modern Art is the failed effort to have content without the form. Verse poetry was called a 300-year failed experiment because it added epic rule sets to creativity and expression. When do we need constraints? only to reach a culture, a time and place, a group, an individual, or the human condition. Novels may be in the past as we lose our ability to think. we may all be twitterized and able to only think in bumper stickers, and what rules will apply to bumper stickers?

so my visceral response to the formal and arbitrary distinctions between sketch and prototype is that this is a definition in search of a word. Sketch is the design-based conventionalized shorthand for “idea.” You get to share the idea without extensive rule following. Prototype is the shorthand for “choices.” The hard constraints are provided by current thought in pedagogical design’s idea of acceptable and unacceptable. While some of this is rule driven because there are some black and white areas where the design is “on pitch” or not. This defines the boundaries or constraints. But inside the playing area the rest lies along the continuum of  choices. These choices all fall in bounds right?

Lastly because this is silly rambling  and taking way too long, the interesting stuff is when we break the boundaries in pedagogy and design. Using Twitter or using on-line tech is the not reformative, but revolutionary choice that allows progression (not to be confused with the too generous word of progress). The interesting stuff in educational design lies on the edge of novel and convincing. It is not enough to be new, it must also be significant. Authenticity is like significant, but it is only one ingredient. It must also be meaningful, but that is another element not the definition. So I use “convincing.” This alludes to an understanding of persuasion that I do  not believe in, but would like to.