The 116

Via HUMNews, Juan Cole offers up this little gem.

Of 237 countries and territories in the world, the 4 largest newsgathering and distribution companies that supply the world with 90% of news do not cover 116 of them.

These 116 countries or territories contain 4 billion people over half the world.

63 of these media-ignored countries and territories are desperately poor.

All this has security implications for the United States. What do you want to bet that in the late 1990s, Afghanistan was in the 116? Hard to know an attack was being planned out there if you don't know the place exists.

What HUM does not say is that the ignoring of the 116 comes from the news corporations' profit motive, which is increasingly driving them to ignore most real news in favor of infotainment. Desperately poor 4th world countries? Not entertaining.

We definitely live in a fishbowl of athlete/celebrity scandals and missing white women, but things are actually much worse than you might imagine. You could take the FT and be better informed about extra-border issues, greatly ignore cable news to remain aloof about such things as balloon hoaxes and Michael Jackson. But this should be what the intraweb is all about - allowing you to peruse aljazeera.net and your local paper within the same 30 minute window.

I still think that anyone taking two weeks off of American television - which itself requires at minimum a trip abroad, to a remote locale - would be, upon seeing it again, so appalled by the advertising alone that they would be loathe to return to levels of former usage. But absent the fifteen days off, we're not availed to that little window of contempt our corporate overlords have for us, or we should have for them.
Damn.

Gobsmacked, Bloodthirsty

It could be offensive to be so characterized, especially when you don't normally think of yourself in this way. For example, we think of ourselves as a peace-loving society, only interested in defending our right to profit from the interlopers of regulation and taxation. All the while, we subsidize a build-up of the most awesome armaments known to man. Plus, we're fascinated by them.

Here is Wolf Blitzer and Barbara Starr talking last night on CNN about the Iranians and what the U.S. might to do them; it's really pitch-perfect:

BLITZER: Regarding Iran, a new report raises some disturbing possibilities about its nuclear program, and that's prompting fears from the United States over how to respond.

Let's bring in our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr.

Barbara, what are you learning?

STARR (voice-over): Iran's once secret underground nuclear fuel enrichment plant. The Pentagon is worried Iran is now burying weapons factories so deep, that the current arsenal of bombs can't reach them, leaving the U.S. with no viable military option if a strike was ever ordered.

This new Air Force 15-ton bomb may change that calculation.

JOHN PIKE, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: We'd certainly be able to take this out with a massive ordnance penetrator, the 30,000-pound boss.

STARR: This is the massive ordnance penetrator, or MOP, now being rushed into development to be carried on B-2 and B-52 bombers. The most likely targets? Iran and North Korea, which are believed to have buried weapons facilities hundreds of feet underground or into the sides of mountains.

PIKE: Some of those would probably require this massive ordnance penetrator simply because they are buried so deep and no other bomb would be able to certainly destroy them.

STARR: At 30,000 pounds, the MOP, some experts say, will be able to penetrate 650 feet of concrete, a significant boost over current bunker-busting bombs like the 2,000-pound BLU-109, which can penetrate just six feet of concrete, and the 5,000-pound GBU-28 which can go through about 20 feet of concrete.

GEOFF MORRELL, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: This has been a capability that we have long believed was missing from our quiver, our arsenal, and we wanted to make sure we've filled in that gap.

STARR: No air strikes against North Korea or Iran appear to be in the works, but Iran says it could start enriching uranium here in the next two years, and both the U.S. and Israel want to ensure that Iran cannot manufacture and assemble a nuclear weapon.

All of this has now led to more funding for the MOP. The Pentagon plans to have the first bombs available by December 2010, two years earlier than planned.

STARR: Now, the Pentagon likes to say it's not helpful to speculate on future military targets, but certainly this weapon gives the Pentagon, Wolf, an option it hasn't had before -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It's a huge, huge bomb, Barbara. Thanks very much for that.

Emphasis mine... theirs... somebody's.

Social Order vs. Education

The concept of competing interests is unruly, but the skyrocketing growth of corrections spending versus how much we spend to educate people is... what's the word? We separate these ideas of inflicting punishment, enlightenment and responsibility in such a way as to introduce higher order confusion among the populace, both in terms of incentivising the lame-ass and self-defeating rhetorical populism candidates use to win office, and how we all (mis)understand budget priorities. Taxes and what we do with them are disconnected from the realities they perpetuate - California-style tax revolt focuses on the taking, not the consequences. Again, it's... what's the word?



Any search will introduce a disaster of examples.

Even the idea that both are viable routes to achieving the same thing - a safe and stable society - is absurd. Can they be exchanged as funding priorities? If we at all unpack these notions, we see that the suitcases are just stuffed with wishful, lazy thinking, that enforcement of harsh principles in terms of poor school performance would cut down on the costs of other kinds of enforcement.
The costs of incarcerating such a large segment of our population are spiritual in nature. The arrival of the monetary costs are mere reminders of the travesty.

I Ask You

More than this?

Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: “This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.”

Biosimilar, indeed.

McFate

It can be difficult, or at least problematic, to characterize obscenity in this day and time; we're so jaded, careless and personally over-exposed in ways that even the most extroverted would have found obscene just decades earlier that it can be difficult to establish benchmarks in any way other than arbitrarily.

So we might harken back to other eras for contrast. Now, often we do this to verify and showcase the fruits of our own openness, to show how prudish our forebears were in service to illuminating our own sense of civilization - unmindful of the connections we re-establish to our present and prudish pageantry.

Nonetheless, the shocking travesties of the past do carry a certain quaintness in our minds when harvested this much later, set in a frames of 1s and 0s and ogled, as it were. They comfort us, in a way, and reassure with objective relief about how things have changed for the better. And have they.

Take, for instance, Nabokov's Lolita. Dealing as it does with one of three taboos of mid-century book publishing, the then-unknown Nabokov, in order to safeguard his tenured status at Cornell, tried to publish the book anonymously. After being rejected by Simon & Schuster, Viking, New Directions and many others because of its pornographic content, Lolita was finally published under his own name in 1955 by Olympia Press in Paris.

The initial run of 5,000 sold out and brought him recognition in Europe. Heated debates by critics in England - both on the book and about the relative safety of young girls - captured the interest of U.S. publishers, leading to the first American edition by Putnam and Sons in 1958. With the repetitive use of words like obscene, incest, scandal and pornography in subsequent book reviews, Lolita's commercial success was assured, and further, a lesson had been learned. But what lesson? One, obviously, that societal mores can be overwhelmed by financial performance. It is silly to even ask whether the successful book, rather than the supposedly pornographic manuscript, has more value.

If a societal taboo can be overwhelmed by financial success, when it is not one but the other which has by far the more deleterious implication, can we determine which is which? The question is, which is more obscene - a cunning literary treatment of an adult man's fascination with a pre-pubescent girl, or abandoning a supposedly absolute moral line because it is a proven money-maker?

Now don't you feel better?

Shocking

It's shocking, the extent to which anyone finds any of this interesting. But still, to keep working, to remain still for long enough to follow a few thoughts and then find the words to describe them and maybe the music to make them sing. That could be good enough. Shocking, even, in this day in time. But should that be considered obscene?

In fact, by the most casual definition, mere attention greatly fails to register. We expect it to be paid somehow, as though it was the last and ultimate currency and even though we've no plans to exploit it for anything other than itself - not exactly much of a trade. What we could 'get' in exchange for a real shock - discomfort, momentary awkwardness, shaking ground - the things that move needles, we relegate to levels of unimportance and lack of impress in order not concern ourselves with problematic thoughts and actions. If the implications of a thing are no great matter, the thing itself is less of a bother - and we move on to identify other more consensus-oriented offenses everyone can agree on. That, for lack of a better word, unite us. So instead of being divided over matters of conscience, we unite for the sake comity. What's obscene, again?

The sensibility to be crossed is the prejudice to be excavated, lifted out the ground and set right, if not upright, in standing and safe for mixed company. We mire in the dirt and soil with soul in peril - would that it be saved or at least spared the indignity of its own depraved nature. Would that the useless Gommorahs find purpose in staining the very ground on which they are situated, harken back to a time when reproach was in supply and offense, a tactical ground to be sieged and thoroughly pilfered in good time. Was there more or less shock in supply? Is it a quantity that ebbs and flows? How do we recognize gross offenses in a randomized outcome culture based on 1s and 0s?

But the pilfered imagination grows defenseless in all this scrawl - and seeks for old ground to claim as new: bad words, uncovered genetalia, blasphemia - benign outlets for canned offense are at the ready, as is the missionary to zeal to prosecute and subdue it.

All the while, rage evolves, too.

So which of these is obscene?

Let's Find Out

Shall we?