Syria ‘believes’ that the US will frame them for utilizing chemical weapons in order to justify western involvment in the Syrian conflict. It seems that others feel the same way. Meanwhile, a semi-interesting topic in the ‘fiscal cliff’ has emerged: where should your money go when you’re dead? If you died in 2010, you got to keep your money. Dinesh D’Souza was interviewed for the Times yesterday; apparently, he’s not going anywhere after all; apparently, neither is Texas, or big media outlets, who will probably do fine for the next few years.
So, I think I’m concluding that post-industrial journalism, by name, only alludes to ‘post-industrialism’ an epoch compartmentalizer which draws arbitrary distinctions between two parts of our economy: service and industrial. Perhaps the moniker, ‘post-industrial journalism’ implies a growing distinction between traditional ‘journalists’ and ‘new media’ components, tweeters, face-bookers bloggers, and everyone online, basically. Unlike a ‘post-industrial’ industrial society, however, whose components balance and even each other out, there is not a balance in journalism and media between the old and the new. “I believe in the horse. The automobile is only a passing phenomenon,” said, Rupert Murdoch, I mean Romney, I mean Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1905.
Things are looking a little dim in Egypt. I feel, however, that a big chunk of the story is missing: what was Morsi’s impetus for pushing to grant himself almost unlimited power, like Thanos and the infinity gauntlet? If the ‘muslim brotherhood’ is behind this move, as is assumed, why would they want one man to yeild so much of their government’s muscle? This doesn’t simply seem like an ego move; that Morsi is simply just a sociopath who is drunk with assuming the presidency following Egypt’s recent turmoil. There seems to be something else going on. I smell a lot of propaganda. Or maybe Morsi’s government feels that it is legitimately fighting back against western interference in its affairs. This guy articulates the obvious paralell between Obama and Morsi with much less objectivity than I’m capable. But what’s executive privelage, anyway? And if a leader truly believes that he is defending his nation’s ‘constitutional’ laws by breaking those laws, is that okay? It’s the ol: ‘this is gonna hurt me more than it’s gonna hurt you.’ Well, not really. The Presidential mandate is more like, A-Rod giving girls his number when he’s benched in the playoffs: he finally felt licenced to be himself—but never hid his true personality too well before, anyway. But the Morsi case seems different. Something smells fishy/planned/set/calculated about it. Like scarface said, Them cats is smart.
As the GOP has to now ‘reinvent’ itself, so does big media. The NY Times is laying off reporters, which isn’t surprising. FOX news has become increasingly totalitarian in response to, what may be, the end of their lifespan in a few years. Unlike Daniel Burrus, however, I don’t believe that old/big media platforms will be able to synthesize with technology and new innovations to compete with new media and their high birth rates. Ease and acessibility of apps won’t help big media. I believe that their survival lies in their pigeonholing a market place to reduce direct sources of competition; but the media marketplace is becoming increasingly eclectic. The question becomes: how does big media maintatin their viewer/reader/listener base while diversifying content? The answer: Big media must utilize content that has been ‘validated’ through social media platforms.
I’d be flattered to recieve an email from President Obama. I don’t think that it would help anything, however, as I’m not too ‘up’ on all the fiscal cliff stuff. I’m assuming, like millions of other Americans, that a compromise will soon be reached. But I have a feeling that Susan Rice’s ‘candidacy’ for Secretary of State may be one of those things that’s included in the compromise, one way or another. I believe, though, that she is actively being used as a red herring. That’s why I’d be flattered to recieve an email from Obama: I’m amazed at his, and his guys/gals’ diabolic resourcefulness.
Obama is responsible for the killing of a lot of people , and good for him, if that’s what he wants. The bottom line is, however, (I hate that metaphor), besides scaring the crap out of a lot of people, he is pissing off a lot more people. And perhaps, people who approve of drone tactics believe that the playing field is a bit more fair, considering our ‘enemy’s’ use of insurgent and ‘terrorist’ tactics; but they would feel differently if they were ever ‘bombed’ or if their family members died, loudly and inocuously.
The kids who fly drones are not CIA operatives. They are fat and happy Air Force enlisted persons who live on cozy air force air fields like the one in Jalalabad Afghanistan. The whole thing reeks of passive aggressivness. Imagine wasting a bunch of people with the push of a button from a cushy chair in Afghanistan, prior to taco-night or a visit from NFL cheerleaders; or better yet, prior to dinner with Spike Lee or some other pressing event: it’s all very absurd; but maybe that’s why Obama’s hair is much grayer than a few years ago.
Senator Obama seemed a bit more interesting than President Obama. He appears to have actually had opinions. But, opinions don’t poll high; and most foreign policy issues don’t poll high either. So why would the candidates bother to discuss/debate ‘terrorism’ or Afghanistan, when Americans apparently are no longer interested? I don’t buy that China has become the focal point in Americans conception of foreign affairs and concerns; but if it hadn’t, then it wouldn’t have been mentioned by the candidates so many times during the campaign. Perhaps, because the Chinese ‘threat’ hasn’t exactly become tangible, like bombs and violent regime changes, it’s hard for me to accept that it’s on the minds of Americans more than actual bombs and regime changes. I know that Lou Dobbes, prior to retiring, had been shouting about a Chinese ‘threat’ for a decade but for some reason, China seems a lot farther away than the ‘Middle’ East and North Africa.
If the Gaza conflict had commenced prior to the election, (although, not good in any sense) our candidates, at least, would have been forced to discuss their positions on Israeli and Palestinian violence; Polls state that Americans have an opinion on the matter; god forbid.