PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Implication of online voting in the future
Hi all,
When it comes to civics, or American political system, I'm not by any means
an expert. However, I am working on an essay where it explores the
possibility of partially eliminating the concept of political representation
by using the Internet. I ask those of you who are better versed in this
subject, if my concept is sheer naivete.
The concept of political representation seems to have arose for two reasons.
1. Most of us cannot, or should not, be involved in politics at all times.
Politics is a specialty which requires immense knowledge, experience, and
wisdom. Beyond a certain point, it makes sense to delegate our political
responsibilities to specialists who represent our political ideals.
2. It is not practically possible to have the people vote on every issue
that needs to be decided. Thus by political representation, we can reduce
the number of votes to a practically manageable size.
In the near future, the second reason will no longer hold true. Once we have
a reliable online system where each voter can easily cast a vote on any
pending issues, some of the needs to have political representation would be
eliminated. This would give the people the power to veto. For instance, we
can decide the number of votes required to be effective, say, 50% of the
population. If this requirement is met, then the outcome of the votes rule
over everything else, even the decisions of the president.
For a situation like the current one with Iraq, where in most countries the
majority of the citizens are opposed to the war, the people can decide for
themselves what the appropriate action should be. It prevents, to a certain
degree, politicians from abusing their power. Even after they are elected,
they would still have to report to the people who would hold the final say
on any issue.
What do you think?
-Dyske
When it comes to civics, or American political system, I'm not by any means
an expert. However, I am working on an essay where it explores the
possibility of partially eliminating the concept of political representation
by using the Internet. I ask those of you who are better versed in this
subject, if my concept is sheer naivete.
The concept of political representation seems to have arose for two reasons.
1. Most of us cannot, or should not, be involved in politics at all times.
Politics is a specialty which requires immense knowledge, experience, and
wisdom. Beyond a certain point, it makes sense to delegate our political
responsibilities to specialists who represent our political ideals.
2. It is not practically possible to have the people vote on every issue
that needs to be decided. Thus by political representation, we can reduce
the number of votes to a practically manageable size.
In the near future, the second reason will no longer hold true. Once we have
a reliable online system where each voter can easily cast a vote on any
pending issues, some of the needs to have political representation would be
eliminated. This would give the people the power to veto. For instance, we
can decide the number of votes required to be effective, say, 50% of the
population. If this requirement is met, then the outcome of the votes rule
over everything else, even the decisions of the president.
For a situation like the current one with Iraq, where in most countries the
majority of the citizens are opposed to the war, the people can decide for
themselves what the appropriate action should be. It prevents, to a certain
degree, politicians from abusing their power. Even after they are elected,
they would still have to report to the people who would hold the final say
on any issue.
What do you think?
-Dyske
Re: about hypertext
This is a peculiar field. It seems forced.
http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/editorial.html
By reading this discussion of hypertext, I get a peculiar sense of
pointlessness (not that there is anything wrong with that). The majority of
it is dedicated to justifying its own premise. Does hypertext need its own
form of criticism? Before I would answer that question, I would question the
question itself. Where is the question coming from? Why does one even get
the urge to ask that question?
The criticism on this site seems to try very hard to legitimize its own
existence and practice. For instance, some of the applications of the
established critical theories feel forced.
Note this passage from this page:
http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/Higgason/truth.html
<quote>
As a result, Barthes (1994) suggests that we should forgo the whole search
for truth in the text. Instead, he states that criticism can be better
served not in the "decipherment of the work's meaning but the reconstruction
of the rules and constraints of that meaning's elaboration". (p. 49) This
means instead of providing interpretations, or critical readings, about what
the work means, a critic should analyze the structures with the text that
make any meaning possible. For a hypertext critic, such a process could seem
daunting. After all, any particular lexia could have multiple contexts. The
meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at the
"rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
performance of the text. How can critics illuminate the structure of works
that do not present an illusion of sameness?
</quote>
I don't have a copy of this particular writing of Barthes, but from reading
the sentence quoted above, I interpret Barthes' argument to be referring to
how the meaning of the work is expressed within certain rules and
constraints of the language (in a broader sense of the term) of the
artist/writer. The point of this isn't to analyze the medium of the
communication. The medium itself, in this instance, is reduced to function
as a device to which the rules and the constraints of the artist are
applied. Analyzing the rules and the constraints of the medium itself would
be misguided. It would be equivalent to analyzing the range of colors that
is possible with oil paints. The important difference here is whose rules
and constraints they are.
"The meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at
the "rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
performance of the text."
This line is particularly troublesome. The fact that the meanings could
easily shift is not an effect of some unique nature of hypertext, but is the
original point of Barthes' argument for not seeking the meaning, which is
not specific to any medium. The complex facade of hypertext does not make
the task any more "daunting" than any other medium. The complexity of the
medium is irrelevant in this.
In similar ways to this, this field of hypertext criticism seems to be
filled with concerns that are only on the surface, and at a level any
deeper, it fails to see any rationale for having a discipline of its own.
Any association with post-structuralism that I came across were forced in
the same manner as above. For instance, drawing of an analogy between
Derrida's Dissemination to the Web; this is only possible at a surface level
of how the Web happens to "disseminate" in a colloquial sense of the term.
Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I
have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous.
Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate me
on the issue further?
-Dyske
http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/editorial.html
By reading this discussion of hypertext, I get a peculiar sense of
pointlessness (not that there is anything wrong with that). The majority of
it is dedicated to justifying its own premise. Does hypertext need its own
form of criticism? Before I would answer that question, I would question the
question itself. Where is the question coming from? Why does one even get
the urge to ask that question?
The criticism on this site seems to try very hard to legitimize its own
existence and practice. For instance, some of the applications of the
established critical theories feel forced.
Note this passage from this page:
http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/Higgason/truth.html
<quote>
As a result, Barthes (1994) suggests that we should forgo the whole search
for truth in the text. Instead, he states that criticism can be better
served not in the "decipherment of the work's meaning but the reconstruction
of the rules and constraints of that meaning's elaboration". (p. 49) This
means instead of providing interpretations, or critical readings, about what
the work means, a critic should analyze the structures with the text that
make any meaning possible. For a hypertext critic, such a process could seem
daunting. After all, any particular lexia could have multiple contexts. The
meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at the
"rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
performance of the text. How can critics illuminate the structure of works
that do not present an illusion of sameness?
</quote>
I don't have a copy of this particular writing of Barthes, but from reading
the sentence quoted above, I interpret Barthes' argument to be referring to
how the meaning of the work is expressed within certain rules and
constraints of the language (in a broader sense of the term) of the
artist/writer. The point of this isn't to analyze the medium of the
communication. The medium itself, in this instance, is reduced to function
as a device to which the rules and the constraints of the artist are
applied. Analyzing the rules and the constraints of the medium itself would
be misguided. It would be equivalent to analyzing the range of colors that
is possible with oil paints. The important difference here is whose rules
and constraints they are.
"The meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at
the "rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
performance of the text."
This line is particularly troublesome. The fact that the meanings could
easily shift is not an effect of some unique nature of hypertext, but is the
original point of Barthes' argument for not seeking the meaning, which is
not specific to any medium. The complex facade of hypertext does not make
the task any more "daunting" than any other medium. The complexity of the
medium is irrelevant in this.
In similar ways to this, this field of hypertext criticism seems to be
filled with concerns that are only on the surface, and at a level any
deeper, it fails to see any rationale for having a discipline of its own.
Any association with post-structuralism that I came across were forced in
the same manner as above. For instance, drawing of an analogy between
Derrida's Dissemination to the Web; this is only possible at a surface level
of how the Web happens to "disseminate" in a colloquial sense of the term.
Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I
have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous.
Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate me
on the issue further?
-Dyske
Re: American Media
Hi Are Flagan,
It may sound silly to say that American media is exaggerated, and it
probably provoked the expression, "Duh?!", but when I say "media" I mean
anything from what's on TV to a website with a few thousand readers. Many
people tend to be anti-mega-corporations and blindly condemn anything big
and embrace anything small, but I find this unreasonable. In a similar way,
just because some media company is small, does not mean that it does not
exaggerate. Most anything from the other side of the fence appear
exaggerated. When you believe in something, you tend to exaggerate, and I do
not see any problem in this. I do not particularly blame any media or any
individual for doing this. What I do instead is to listen to any of them and
try to assess how much of that information I should accept to be true for
myself. And, I do not blindly assume that everything is exaggerated either.
This is why you probably felt that my statement was a silly understatement.
Thus for me, ANY media (including "The O'Reilly Report", though I've never
seen it) can be useful.
Also, at a meta level, the mainstream media is very useful in that they tend
to focus in on the issues that the average Americans find amusing,
interesting, and/or scary. It is interesting and useful to know what the
majority is thinking and feeling, regardless of what you are thinking and
feeling. I do not believe, as some people do, that the sole purpose of the
media giants is to manipulate the masses to their own liking. There may be
some of that at work but I believe the forces are 50/50 between the media
and their audience. After all, it is a business. They are in it to make
money. They cannot afford to push their own political agendas if they do not
get the viewer rating. They wish they could get a big rating for whatever
they broadcast, but this is not possible for them.
A suburban white girl gets kidnapped, the media is all over it. An urban
black girl gets kidnapped, and no one hears about it. Many believe that
there are some media executives whose ideological goal is to suppress the
misfortunes of the black people, but this is difficult to imagine. Most
media executives are, in the end, just interested in money. It is hard to
imagine that they would go out of their ways to suppress something that
could otherwise get a big rating, for their own ideals.
I once read an interview with an ideologically minded reporter who was keen
on covering the misfortunes of the blacks, where he said the ratings of
these news items were always a failure. The people were simply not
interested. Eventually this reporter gave up his ideology, not because the
media company let him down, but because the people did. If there is a
problem in American media, we as the audience are just as guilty of it.
Simply to blame the media is not constructive.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
It may sound silly to say that American media is exaggerated, and it
probably provoked the expression, "Duh?!", but when I say "media" I mean
anything from what's on TV to a website with a few thousand readers. Many
people tend to be anti-mega-corporations and blindly condemn anything big
and embrace anything small, but I find this unreasonable. In a similar way,
just because some media company is small, does not mean that it does not
exaggerate. Most anything from the other side of the fence appear
exaggerated. When you believe in something, you tend to exaggerate, and I do
not see any problem in this. I do not particularly blame any media or any
individual for doing this. What I do instead is to listen to any of them and
try to assess how much of that information I should accept to be true for
myself. And, I do not blindly assume that everything is exaggerated either.
This is why you probably felt that my statement was a silly understatement.
Thus for me, ANY media (including "The O'Reilly Report", though I've never
seen it) can be useful.
Also, at a meta level, the mainstream media is very useful in that they tend
to focus in on the issues that the average Americans find amusing,
interesting, and/or scary. It is interesting and useful to know what the
majority is thinking and feeling, regardless of what you are thinking and
feeling. I do not believe, as some people do, that the sole purpose of the
media giants is to manipulate the masses to their own liking. There may be
some of that at work but I believe the forces are 50/50 between the media
and their audience. After all, it is a business. They are in it to make
money. They cannot afford to push their own political agendas if they do not
get the viewer rating. They wish they could get a big rating for whatever
they broadcast, but this is not possible for them.
A suburban white girl gets kidnapped, the media is all over it. An urban
black girl gets kidnapped, and no one hears about it. Many believe that
there are some media executives whose ideological goal is to suppress the
misfortunes of the black people, but this is difficult to imagine. Most
media executives are, in the end, just interested in money. It is hard to
imagine that they would go out of their ways to suppress something that
could otherwise get a big rating, for their own ideals.
I once read an interview with an ideologically minded reporter who was keen
on covering the misfortunes of the blacks, where he said the ratings of
these news items were always a failure. The people were simply not
interested. Eventually this reporter gave up his ideology, not because the
media company let him down, but because the people did. If there is a
problem in American media, we as the audience are just as guilty of it.
Simply to blame the media is not constructive.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
Questioning Iraq's "Oppression"
Today at a facility I occasionally go to for my business, I met a guy who is
half British and half Iraqi. The father side of his family, including his
own father, currently lives in Iraq. I took the opportunity to ask him a
bunch of questions.
Unlike many political refugees from Iraq, he is opposed to the war. The
picture of the "oppression" that the American media and politicians paint
seems to be exaggerated. According to him, most people are not happy about
Saddam's regime, but they are not necessarily crying about it every day
(which is the picture you get from the American media). They live a rather
normal life with a certain amount of frustration. It is like the way many
people in the US are unhappy and frustrated about the Bush administration.
He does not believe that the Iraqi people will view the American soldiers to
be their friends who liberated them. If some country were to invade the US
by force and ousted Bush, would those who were frustrated with him feel
liberated and happy about the invasion? No. The same scenario.
One of the issues that was troubling me to simply say no to war was that I
wasn't sure how bad this "oppression" was. If people were getting tortured,
raped, and killed every day in the manners that the media describe, then
there is certainly a humanitarian concern. I do still believe that these
inhumane activities go on in Iraq, but the picture I am getting from the
media seems to be blown out of proportion.
My chat with this half Iraqi half British man today was enlightening. Again,
I must see this as his interpretation, and my interpretation of his
interpretation, but it did influence my position. I am now more inclined to
say no to war.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
half British and half Iraqi. The father side of his family, including his
own father, currently lives in Iraq. I took the opportunity to ask him a
bunch of questions.
Unlike many political refugees from Iraq, he is opposed to the war. The
picture of the "oppression" that the American media and politicians paint
seems to be exaggerated. According to him, most people are not happy about
Saddam's regime, but they are not necessarily crying about it every day
(which is the picture you get from the American media). They live a rather
normal life with a certain amount of frustration. It is like the way many
people in the US are unhappy and frustrated about the Bush administration.
He does not believe that the Iraqi people will view the American soldiers to
be their friends who liberated them. If some country were to invade the US
by force and ousted Bush, would those who were frustrated with him feel
liberated and happy about the invasion? No. The same scenario.
One of the issues that was troubling me to simply say no to war was that I
wasn't sure how bad this "oppression" was. If people were getting tortured,
raped, and killed every day in the manners that the media describe, then
there is certainly a humanitarian concern. I do still believe that these
inhumane activities go on in Iraq, but the picture I am getting from the
media seems to be blown out of proportion.
My chat with this half Iraqi half British man today was enlightening. Again,
I must see this as his interpretation, and my interpretation of his
interpretation, but it did influence my position. I am now more inclined to
say no to war.
-Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
Reading the British Dossier
They claim that they did their own research to verify the facts, but if they
did research and fully understood the facts, then why would they choose to
copy someone else's words instead of stating in their own words? Unless they
don't know how to write in English. Wouldn't it be only natural for someone
to write something in his own words if he felt that he made enough
contributions of his own to the ideas or to the facts?
There is much to be analyzed about their gesture of plagiarizing. It shows
that they don't really know much. Anyone who has done substantial research
of their own would not choose to copy someone else's words. That would be
discrediting their own research, knowledge, and understanding. It would make
no sense, unless: 1. they didn't do their own research, or 2. they wanted to
pay their respect to the original writer. In this particular case of British
dossier, the second possibility is void since they didn't credit the
original writer. The first one is the only scenario that I can think of.
-Dyske
did research and fully understood the facts, then why would they choose to
copy someone else's words instead of stating in their own words? Unless they
don't know how to write in English. Wouldn't it be only natural for someone
to write something in his own words if he felt that he made enough
contributions of his own to the ideas or to the facts?
There is much to be analyzed about their gesture of plagiarizing. It shows
that they don't really know much. Anyone who has done substantial research
of their own would not choose to copy someone else's words. That would be
discrediting their own research, knowledge, and understanding. It would make
no sense, unless: 1. they didn't do their own research, or 2. they wanted to
pay their respect to the original writer. In this particular case of British
dossier, the second possibility is void since they didn't credit the
original writer. The first one is the only scenario that I can think of.
-Dyske