The Digest—Tuesday, 22 November, 2016

[The Digest is a collection of articles, videos, and other media I've viewed and found significant throughout the day. It is a way to divest myself from other social media that is more reliant on likes, click-bait, and peer-approval rather than quality, intelligence, and diversity of opinion, which are the qualities I find important. It is also a way to devote myself to daily contributions to this space...at least in theory.]

-=Summary: The media mourns itself, the nefarious consequences of false equivalence, rigging the election, war on the poor, university as commerce, Matt Tiabbi says some shit, & Good Girls Revolt=-

Articles:

Trump v the media: did his tactics mortally wound the fourth estate?
from The Guardian

I would argue that the fourth estate has been mortally wounded for a while and that the infection of Trump has merely made the symptoms more visible. This should terrify everyone, even those whipped into repeated frenzies about the "mainstream media" and "liberal press." For a group of persons who claim to want change so desperately that they're willing to watch the world burn to accomplish it, they exempt themselves form these efforts and seek only to reinforce their views of the world. But, of course, what they call change is really reinforcement of long-standing status quo and existing privilege...but that's a different topic.

How False Equivalence Is Distorting the 2016 Election Coverage  (must read!)
from The Nation

This one is a little old, though I just stumbled upon it today, but it addresses one of the most egregious failures of the press in modern political discourse. "Equal time" rules during campaigns make sense, but equal truth? Not so much. No one has done a better job at validating the anti-science, anti-fact, anti-reality narrative driven by Republican politics and embodied in Donald Trump than the mainstream press and its desperate drive to seem unbiased. 

In this narrative, if one side has a fact, represented in scientifically-supported data, peer-reviewed, or even just basically, observably, demonstrably true (as in, "The clock on the wall says it's 4pm"), and the other side has a story funded by billionaires in whose interest it is to make clocks disreputable, or just to fuck with the system (as in, "Other sources in the room said the clock was slow" or "Scientists haven't come to a consensus that time is real" or "It didn't feel like 4pm; I'd guess it was closer to 5"), these two "viewpoints" are posed as equally deserving of attention and validation. This is total bullshit. Journalists know better, but fear and cowardice motivate them to treat Newt Gingrich's gut feelings on equal standing with scientific data.

The Digest—Monday, 21 November, 2016

[The Digest is a collection of articles, videos, and other media I've viewed and found significant throughout the day. It is a way to divest myself from other social media that is more reliant on likes, click-bait, and peer-approval rather than quality, intelligence, and diversity of opinion, which are the qualities I find important. It is also a way to devote myself to daily contributions to this space...at least in theory.]

I spent the sleepless, early-morning hours catching up on Vice News Tonight. A couple stories in particular caught my attention, and they had nothing to do with the election. The first was about a principal at an elementary school in Baltimore trying new tactics to increase attendance and help improve the lives of her students, apparently to great effect. Personally, I think she's amazing.

Dealing in Democracy—The Rehumanization of Bureaucracy

[Dealing in Democracy grasps at, wrestles with, questions, critiques, and explores mere tinges of the brittle and broken bones of American politics through my admittedly biased eyes and offers me an outlet through which to fumigate the horrors both presently presenting and ever-present.] 

Throughout this agonizingly long and malicious election cycle, and now especially post-election, I keep hearing about the failure of progressive policy—how the great social experiment in liberal ideals like equal opportunity, multiculturalism, environmental responsibility, and social justice have been rejected by the majority, even if the alternative is to burn the system to the ground.

Aside from the incorrect presumption of majority, as Clinton did indeed win the popular vote (as did Democrats for the Senate, though gerrymandering makes notions of popular will an impolite topic of conversation), I would argue that it is not the policies of progressivism that have failed, but the people appointed to enact and enforce those policies. To quote a celestially homicidal computer, "It can only be attributable to human error."

The depressing state of politics in southern Oregon

I could count it as another way I've been spoiled by growing up in the San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the food, diversity, culture, music and art scenes, local shops, and temperate weather—intense political activism. I grew up with a political-mindedness, and my parents didn't even have to brainwash my vulnerable baby-brain to do it. Awareness and advocacy of issues and policies and ideologies of things political is kind of part of the air when you live in the SF area, perhaps due to a combination of contextual history and the necessities demanded of a diverse population that exhorts inclusiveness but continues to to struggle with social/economic oppression.

I moved to southern Oregon 19 months ago, and the political landscape struck me as somewhat similar to California, if on a smaller scale—the larger cities are more liberal while rural areas are more conservative. I've benefited from Oregon public policy, namely the Oregon Health Plan, which has provided me stable health insurance for the first time in years. But I didn't realize how unpolitical things are until I began exploring my electoral options for mayor of Medford.

Two old white men who seem politically similar, neither of whom are very appealing to me, one of whom ran for mayor unopposed four years ago, and who are, actually, friends with one another. What the hell is wrong with this picture?

About that 2nd debate...and LDS missionaries

I was not looking forward to watching this debate, and if I hadn't accidentally flaked on a friend, I would have missed it (I fell asleep, since chronic insomnia has turned me into a pseudo-narcoleptic). But I decided it was my civic duty and tuned in anyway.

I was mostly prepped by various articles published online throughout the day (I check The Guardian, Slate, The Atlantic, and CNN often, the latter for a more mainstream, false-equivalence narrative). Trump's plan seemed to be to attack the opposing presidential nominee for her husband's actions, which just reinforces the misogyny inherent in Donald Trump, aside from that whole "grab them by the pussy" business.

It seemed Mr. Trump was prepped by professionals and a healthy dose of Ativan this time, though it was still more of the same—the absolute inability to answer whatever he's asked, making shit up and insisting it's true, ignoring the presence of reality, rudeness, bluster, and banter, blah blah.

The one aspect that made this feel different was the town hall format, which lets candidates move and walk around, presenting a physicality that was less apparent in the first debate. Quite frequently, the Donald loomed behind Clinton to the point where I half expected him to suddenly whip out a sword, scream "BOOOONNNNSSAAAAAAIIIIIII!!!" like a maniac, and lop her head off. But, no—he just interrupted a lot. Again.

About that debate...

I tend to read my news rather than watch news shows or channels or speeches or debates, but I figured the first Clinton v. Trump debate would be entertaining, at the least. Trump tried to repress his natural instincts for the first few minutes, but then gave in to his orangutang heritage and dutifully pounded his chest, flung shit from his cage, and masturbated his ego without shame. An hour and a half later—my voice hoarse from screaming at the television—it got even worse. Turning to groups of live viewers for aftermath interviews, most were utterly unaffected by the whole affair. Those who loved him still loved him, though were a little disappointed; those who don’t love him were “not surprised” by his behavior and shrugged their shoulders; those who are undecided had not yet decided…and shrugged their shoulders. 

Really?

Semantics — A to abattoir

[Words are units of metaphor, symbols strung together to convey meaning, the idea of something. Definitions are interpretations of meaning sussed out of usage—past, present, professional, colloquial, common and idiosyncratic. For the record, semantics means meaning, or the interpretation of meaning, specifically in relation to language. So yes, it is just semantics, but it is all just semantics.]

So...I am reading the dictionary (again), the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD). I'm also transcribing part of it--not every word, abbreviation, place, or name, but those words/parts of words I find of interest, which is most of them. This is not a transcription of that transcription, but a sharing of words as NOAD shared them with me. There are, in addition, some links and media and random ruminations regarding certain words, or ideas of words, or ideas about language, or ideas in general. 

Sadly, the OED is only available online for a very hefty price (I am using a hardcopy), so I will reference the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for linked definitions. The Online Etymology Dictionary is also a dear friend, so I will link to her often as well. 

I don't expect anyone to get anything out of this but me, though I would love someone to prove me wrong.