It is What It Is. Or is it?

 Saying it is doesn't mean it is because it might not be or does not have to be.  But saying "it is what it is" means it is and always will be because it can't be something else. So, "is it what it is" but does it always have to be?  What if we say it is what it is and it's not but people want you to believe it is.  It might not be what it is but may be something else. So perhaps it's not what it is and IT is an illusion and 'what it is" is actually undefined? Do we just say "it is what it is" because we really don't know what it is?  

That' it! 

How Historians Will View Us. Will They Conclude We Were Silly?

 The following essay is about history.  But it’s about content to be used by future historians. The Supreme Court is going to decide how current events will be evaluated by future generations.  The Supreme Court is going to decide if future historians will have to sift through the contradictions between the truth and the pseudo-history offered by people that chose to lie.  

The Supreme Court said in Gertz v Welch (1974) that there is no speech value to a lie.  While lies have no value as speech, lies have found its home in the marketplace.  For many, social media has become the marketplace host where lies can be monetized.

 

Facebook has roughly 240 million users in the US.  The company posts its criteria for acceptable and unacceptable content.  None of the criteria for exclusion relate to political viewpoints. However, the Texas legislature has concluded with its bill “relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages,”  that Facebook is deleting content for its political point of view.  The bill allows any Texas resident who has their content banned based on perceived political motives on Facebook to sue the company.  The law also allows suing YouTube and Twitter.

 

This bill will perhaps assuage the majority of Americans that believe social media already restrict content based on its political bent.  Pew Research found that 90% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats believe social media sites censor political content.

 

The bill passed by Texas Republicans declare Facebook and the like to be “common carriers.”  This is the same designation given to Bell Telephone when it was allowed its monopoly on our home phones, back when we all had home phones linked by wire. This is the same designation given to companies that provide transportation of goods and similar services.  All such entities deemed common carriers must hold themselves out for all to use, regardless of the nature of the user.  Bell Telephone had to passively allow all speech and all users. 

 

Such a designation is consistent with the nature of Section 230 of the Telecommunication Act of ’96. Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). Essentially the section of the law clears social media of any responsibility for its content.  Those covered by this section are considered passive conduits for its content.

 

President Trump sought to limit Section 230, along with Senators Rubio and Hawley saying that Facebook was censoring content it should not and that 230 offered too much protection.  Democrat Ron Wyden, among the authors of Section 230, believed that Facebook was not sufficiently active in limiting bad content. 

 

Social media can censor content.  It is not a First Amendment matter as they are not a government agency. If given common carrier status, its ability to censor content or specific users could be challenged.

Whether determining social media as a common carrier is an elevation of status is a matter of perspective.  

But changing its status to such would mean it could not censor speech or limit any user’s ability to publish.  Speech related to racism, homophobia and xenophobia would receive all protection given to any other speech.  Perhaps such protection should be offered.  Perhaps Milton’s Marketplace of Ideas provides a model for what social media should be—a flea market of ideas in which, in Milton’s hopes, the best of ideas would rise to the top.

 

The case of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) concluded that while Gertz assertion that there is no such thing as a false opinion was true, often opinions are stated in ways that they could be understood by the average person to be factual assertions. Essentially, if a statement could be proven true of false, it is not as much an offer of an opinion as an assertion of fact.  Did Milton anticipate the marketplace could be inhabited by such manipulation as social media often offer.

 

So, should Texas legislatures prevail in the upcoming challenges to this law?  Should social media be considered common carriers?

Facebook has stock holders dependent on continuing its hold of its marketplace share.  Throughout media history, media have self-regulated as a means to forestall government regulation and consumer boycotts.  One could argue that social media do such self-regulation merely to maintain good standing in the court of public opinion.  Or one could argue that social media act as good Samaritans protecting the public from lies and hate.  Whatever the motivation, social media delete content.  Of course, some argue its censorship is often based on political ideology.  

 

Parenthetically, my brother and I have separately been suspended by Facebook for posting sarcastic comments of a more liberal nature.  We were suspended for spreading lies.  In both our cases we could make arguments our content was clearly satirical and not assertion of fact.  We did not consider our suspensions to be politically motivated.  Many conservatives argue that certain censorship of some assertions of a conservative bent were solely political motivated.  These claims are without evidence of a purely political motivation.  Of course, the 240+ million Facebook users of America are not privy to the discussions that go into when content is removed or users suspended. 

 

There are other legal arguments related to this that can be included, though engaging such discussions must allow the premise that certain social media are common carriers.  Texas legislatures making such an assertion does not make it so.

 

So why is this post in a blog dedicated to history?  Why does it matter whether Facebook is able to censor content? If our media content is to become the artifacts of future historical study, the nature of that content is of great importance.  Social media is important today as a tool of access to the world and but will also serve as a tool for the historians of the future to give context to the events that shape our time.  The nature of that content to be analyzed will be decided by how courts look at this bill by the Texas legislature.  Perhaps historians will look past certain lies and opinions stated as factual assertions.  Will future historians view social media as an artifact of an idealistic marketplace of ideas that suffered many of the worst case scenarios enabled by the noble vision?  Or will the legislative fight to enable lies be viewed as an artifact of a broken society?  Perhaps we have not yet seen the moment Milton counted on:  that when all possible viewpoints are offered, the best ideas will rise to the top.

 

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/29/supreme-court-texas-social-media-law/

 

https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/ facebook community standards

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB20

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-section-230-and-why-does-trump-want-to-change-it/?sh=7b05fa7b389d

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/563/milkovich-v-lorain-journal-co

A Few Words About Words

 A Few Words About Words

 

Words are interesting.  Sometimes words are meaningful and sometimes meaningless.

Olives are “flavorful.”   I hear the word “flavorful” a lot on the Food Network.

There is no doubt that olives are indeed flavorful.  However, the primary problem with olives is that they are flavorful. Full of the flavor of olives.  I

 know many people love olives and I am sure most of these people are perfectly good people. But I have to question their judgment.  Because they love olives. I don’t believe olive fans truly like olives. 

Because if they did, they would refer to olives as “tasty.”  Tasty is a word we use for things that are really good.  Like a nice wine.Like a good steak.  Like a good hot fudge topping.  

These things are tasty.  Olives are merely flavorful.

 

Some time ago, I told a friend I did not live olives.  Turns out he grew olives for a living.  He was not offended that I did not like olives.

But he challenged me.  He said that if I ate 8 olives, by the eighth olive I would love olives.  

I responded that while that may be true, I would still suffer through the seven olives of hell.

Olives are flavorful.  Full of the flavor of olives.   They are not tasty.   How we discuss olives depends on the words we use.

 

Another word we use and overuse is “like.”  It was “like cold” when I went to the “like restaurant” and bought “like lunch.”

My daughter used to say “like” a lot.  I started challenging her on the word.  When she asked if I “like wanted lunch” I started responding,

“When you say, ‘like want lunch’, are you asking me if I am planning to simulate wanting lunch, going through the motions of wanting lunch? Because that’s what it sounds like when you include “like” in that sentence.” 

It’s ‘like cold.’  Is the outside world a simulation of cold or actually cold?

Is it “like cold” or actually cold?   Yes, “like” is overused.  It is used in lieu of a creative thought. Instead of finding a good analogy for “cold’—instead of a clever 

visualization of cold, we say “like cold.”  Cliches are also annoying—“cold as ice” is overused and has no benefit to those trying to visualize.

In fact, 645 years ago, a guy named Phillippe from Venice said in the language appropriate to Venice that it was “hot as hell.”  People laughed approvingly at

this novel, brilliant visualization. Hell is hot and it was indeed hot that day. A cliche was born 645 years ago. The phrase is long past its usefulness and is now correctly viewed as dull.

Cliches are overused and share so little.  

I made up the entire story about where “hot as hell” came from, but it’s believable.  That’s how old that cliche seems.

 

So cliches are what we use when we have no clever ways to visualize “hot as….” “cold as….” “dull as…”.  

“Like” is another oral choice we make when we can’t create a clever way to say “we’re hungry as….”  “we’re bored as…” We are like bored which makes us like hungry.

 

Word choices matter and they say something about us.

 

When speaking to some students about the events of October 7, I reminded the students that in discussions of the events of the day, words matter.

I told them, “When you discuss these events with anybody, please remember a few things.  The Palestinians and Muslims did not attack Israel.  Hamas did.

The Jews did not attack Gaza.  The Israeli Defense Forces did.  To blame the Palestinians, the Muslims or the Jews is inaccurate and will spread hate.

We can share information or we can share hate.  It depends on the words we use.”

 

The tone of this essay changed dramatically in the previous paragraph.  Due to my word choices and topics I brought up.

The unifying theme of all of this is that our word choice matters.  Whether we are expressing the outdoor temperature or a war being fought far away.

How we describe something says a lot about us.  Our word choices serve to teach and share and suggest how others should express themselves.  

What is at stake changes by the paragraph.  By the sentence.  The words we choose matter.

Media surrounds us with bright, shiny things...

We like bright, shiny things.  Starting in our baby years.  Greta Thunberg was a bright, shiny thing these days.  

A conservative friend repeated several times on my facebook site that Greta Thunberg was unqualified to talk about climate change.  He wanted facts and not the thoughts of a “girl” who a Fox News host had deemed “mentally ill.” who a Fox News host had deemed "mentally ill"

Facts regarding climate change had not appealed to this friend of mine.  And yes, I have friends that are Republican/Conservative. Only requirement for not getting blocked is not being an asshole—respectful dissent is always welcome.  And I hate those moments he makes a valid point.

Anyway, he said Greta was unqualified.  After consideration, I had to conclude that she was indeed by her background, by education, by earned degree—unqualified. And then I concluded “So what?”   When did we get to an era when qualifications are required to be able to influence the public? We are certainly not there today. 

Some of the biggest influencers now are in social media.  According to Mediakix, the most popular social media influencer is Amanda Cerny (@Amandacerny). https://mediakix.com/blog/top-instagram-influencers/Amanda CernyShe has 24.7 million followers. She was recently in a Cardi B music video.  She did comedy sketches on You Tube which have gained her 2.6 million subscribers.  I watched several of the videos and there were absolutely attempts at humor.  

Other social media influencers have gained millions of followers based sometimes on their qualifications, sometimes on their looks and sometimes looking good though their qualifications are minimal.

But when did an education become a requirement for influencing society?  It hasn’t.  But unqualified people have led social change for decades.  

Some of our most influential folks in recent decades didn’t know shit.  But they said some shit that got our attention.  Look at influencer Lenny Bruce. Lenny Bruce He changed the world of comedy.  By saying shit.  And “fuck”.  And conjugating other words into profanities as long as 12 letters. And he did this in a time when such language was not allowed in public.  He was arrested at least five times for his vulgarity.  

George Carlin called him a role model to the degree where he got arrested with him just to say he did.  Lenny opened the doors to every comedian who followed.  If you are old enough to remember Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Eddie Murphy in his prime—they did their thing because Lenny did his.  Lenny’s qualifications to change society?  None. Except he thought society needed some change to escape a suffocating hypocritical society.  And he was funny.  

Another unqualified funny man who made a difference: Dick Gregory. An African-American comedian who did his work when people didn’t refer to him as African-American, but instead use a term I won’t use.   . How can you not appreciate someone who explains his experience in the South like this. “I spent 20 years there one night,” Gregory began. “I walked into this restaurant and this waitress said ‘we don’t serve coloured people here’ and I said ‘that’s all right, I don’t eat coloured people. Bring me a whole fried chicken.’” Gregory began He went to Southern Illinois University, served honorably in the army and served as a bridge between the races in the 60’s and for many years after.

He must have accomplished something of value.  Nixon put him on an enemies list and had the FBI do surveillance on him.  He was a black comedian on the Tonight Show back when Jack Paar hosted it.  Mr. Gregory insisted on being interviewed on the Tonight Show instead of just doing his routine.  

He changed minds and changed world and influenced the media.  His education that allowed him to pontificate on such matters.  Not much formal.  But he lived it. He knew it.

Conservatives also are led sometimes by the unqualified.  One is known by 80% of all 

Americans and has the sixth most popular radio show/podcast and has been named the 2^nd most famous radio host in America (behind Howard Stern).

Baby boomers are his biggest fans.  Millenials think he’s the 40^th best.    Yes, we’re talking Rush Limbaugh. He has been nationally syndicated for 31 years.  He wrote seven books, two of which became best sellers on the NY Times list.

Rush’s qualifications to pontificate on politics, to lead the republican party, to sow seeds of discontent like the people named above:  none.  Dropped out of college after two semesters.  His mother said he failed at everything except radio.  His career as a national leader of conservative thought happened because the Reagan administration got rid of the Fairness Doctrine.  Rush is unqualified to speak of political matters.  Or social matters or things that matter.  But he is highly rated.

So this is a long story to a short point.  Anyone else tells me that Greta was unqualified and uneducated in the details of science and climate change—well, the media has always given its time to bright, shiny things.  Those people who get our attention.  Some are qualified.  Many are not.  We are a society not based on facts but our fascination by bright, shiny things.  Babies like bright shiny colors because their eyes are not fully developed.  The media continues our love affair with bright, shiny things.  Obama was one. Trump another one.  And thankfully, Greta is one today.  

reflections on four months in Asia. It ain't all the same, by any means...

So, I’m no longer a Fulbright scholar. I’m not back in America yet so maybe I'm still a little bit of a Fulbright scholar. An extraordinary four months. I went from massive disappointment of my time in Bangkok to the great joy I felt in Myanmar and Malaysia and then great joy again in one small town in Thailand.

I tried very hard to talk to people, to gain advocates among schools, media, professors, anyone..about initiating media literacy curriculum in Bangkok K-12 schools.  Starting first with teachers.  To make sure they are prepared with the tools to properly teach the children.  (The link will offer a description and definition of media literacy.  I will talk more about this.  If you want an educated student body of individuals who can think well, problem solve and make educated voting decisions, then you'll like media literacy.)
Giving a lot of thought to why all my efforts in Bangkok were dismal failures. It could be me. And I’ll give that more thought in the future.. But I also wondered, was it years, decades of distrust in Thailand of all institutions, a doubt that any progress leaning toward greater democracy and improved levels of education was possible. is it the result of systemic learned helplessness among the Thai? Lip Service is given to new ideas but the next steps-discussion, enactment and implementation-don’t seem to happen.

I turned to teachers, to media that purports to move toward greater democracy, to institutions of higher education, they all gave lip service. They never offered actual support.

Yes, it could be my ideas. It could be my goal to spread media literacy and to promote critical thinking starting in kindergarten and never stopping that education, is not a good idea for Thailand. (Yeah, I think it's a good idea.)

Maybe it’s not the right time for it. Maybe I’m not the right advocate for it. I hope I figure that out and learn those answers.

Hope is restored when I think back to my experience in Myanmar. Speaking to 20 young women. All of them determined to return to their small towns throughout Myanmar and spread knowledge of human rights and women’s rights. I will remember them maintaining their attention even though they had to wait for my wonderful interpreter to explain what I was saying. I remember working with them for seven hours. And the smiles and nods they offered throughout, the wonderful questions, the Thank yous and the lovely gifts. I left there with the hope that maybe i helped a little bit. Helping young women’s spread information about human rights and women’s rights. Gave me hope and supplied great meaning to everything I have been doing. (The link I supplied to the Ta'ang Women's Group is about an issue the organization advocated for.  These are brave people in the fascinating city of Lashio 

I think to my time in Roi Et Thailand. A city with great food, the best I've had in Thailand.  Also, no mass transit and almost no one that speaks English.  I think about the students, many with limited English skills, who tried their best to understand the content. The wonderful teacher, Allison Orr, who made me a better teacher by gently sharing some wonderful ideas on how to communicate to this group more effectively.

And I will reflect on the six wonderful days I spent in Malaysia. I’m waiting for my plane right now to head back to Bangkok. I’m very sad to leave Kuala Lumpur  The outstanding people in the American Embassy in Kuala Lampur brilliantly set up meetings with the education ministry within the government of Malaysia, with teachers of higher education, with future teachers of students at all levels. The librarians. With audiences alive with great optimism as the recent election has led to hopes of greater democracy in the very near future here. Optimism may be a major indicator of being open to new ideas. The beauty of Malaysia is quite remarkable. But the warm feelings I have don’t come from the warm temperatures as much as the warm people. The residents in this country as well as the people I met from the embassy and related programs. Thanks to all of you. It’s been extraordinary to be here.  Your optimism is appreciated. And a stark contrast to Thailand.  

Is optimism about a future a prerequisite to accepting change?  I lived a case study.  In Thailand, where a tradition of pessimism prevails due to allegations of decades of corruption, there was no help at building an evolving education system.  In Malaysia, fresh off an election that had a conclusion that seemed to shock many.  With that shock came the optimism of increased press freedom.  And an openness to the new ideas I brought to them.  
My time as a Fulbright scholar is about to end. But my reflection and resulting education will continue. There is much that I will learn from my experience. Assessing my own performance and wondering what the next step will be to bring media literacy education to the people of Myanmar and Malaysia, and maybe someday, perhaps, to Thailand.  (And to more than the relatively few states that have embraced media literacy education.)

I hate to sound too academic, but future research may determine if trust and optimism in the governing systems is correlated to being open to new ideas and the thought of progress.

My education continues.

Damn. Seriously. We can do this shit...

In our overly mediated world, a moment of profound reason using an old style form of communication that has been minimized in favor of--well, all the crap in our cell phones that steal our attention away from the world.

This happened. It can happen again. 

Small town Kentucky cop overseeing drug interdiction—I had to look that word up, it means interception—in a conversation with the New York liberal about gun regulations (that would be me). He didn’t want the regulations. I suggested some laws restricting certain guns would be good. A respectful exchange of ideas.

He made many good points about gun ownership being an important right to protect.
He said Democrats and liberals are out to take people’s guns away. I explained that in my time in Iowa working with various party platform committees not one person ever even hinted at the idea of taking people’s guns. Regulation of future gun sales. Yes. Taking a single gun away. Never. He accepted my word on that. He said he thought he could trust me. 

He said that laws limiting certain types of guns would not change anything today or tomorrow. I said he was absolutely right. But ten, twenty, fifty years from now, those laws might stop someone from getting access to a gun. Might stop a shooting at a high school. He said he never thought of it that way. He accepted my point. We agreed. 
Conversation. Not an exchange of memes, not an exchange of insults. 

It is meaningful that not long after this conversation there was another school shooting.  More dead kids.

Conversation. Finding the middle ground where truth usually resides.

reflections and deflections and occasional imperfections in and on Thailand

Things I will miss about Thailand.  (In blogs you are supposed to link to things.  So I linked to things that may or may not be useful)

And yes, of course I am happy to return to my family and friends and colleagues.  I am treasuring the moment I return to work and attend the Dean-a-thon where I learn, through a 42 page powerpoint presentation and after three years of sabbatical, that the Dean of Agriculture has found a new way to double cumquat production in Bali.

We also learn that ‘cumquat’ is a funny word either referring to a fruit or an exercise proposed by Masters & Johnson.

Now getting to things I will miss.. I just had my last free breakfast that costs four dollars a day.  I pay for the free breakfasts when I check out of the hotel, so every day they’re free.  True Fact:  if you don’t pay for something the moment you get something, it’s free.  Every bank heist you commit is a total success until you get caught.  

I
 will miss laying by the pool every morning.  Is laying in the sun each day good for you?  No.  But my friends, family and colleagues require empirical proof as I return some January day, that I was in Thailand.  And that means a tan to show off.  As well as several irregularly shaped areas on my skin, three of which look like (from left to right) Australia, Africa and Idaho. 

I will miss Thai food.  I will miss pointing to pictures on menus since after 6 years of visiting Thailand I still can’t speak the language except for theThai words for “hello”, “thank you” and “Yes, I love happy endings—you saw the Wizard of Oz, too?”

But back to the food.  Be careful of the little red peppers.  Small but pack a powerful punch.  Kind of like Madeline Albright.  Coconut milk is added to so many dishes.  And for no extra money since the food is donated by the makers of Simvistatin.  Fun fact:  did you know the cholesterol reducing drug’s name “Simvistatin” comes from the Thai word “making you not die now.”? That is the truth as far as I know given the lack of research.  

The people are warm and wonderful.  And I remember well being told that everybody in Bangkok speaks English.  It is true that every Thai I met knew the word “English” as in “I speak a little English” meaning they knew how to say “I speak a little English.” But I almost always received a smile.  True story that’s true:  I went to the mall in Thailand to buy a fan.  I asked the salesperson in perfect English for a “fan.”  She laughed and walked away.  Then I found a group of salespeople and asked in a louder voice and more slowly, for a “fan.”  A larger group of young women walked away.  What I learned later is that “fan” is the Thai word for “girlfriend.”  So I was asking a bunch of Thai women to be my girlfriend.  And they all laughed and walked away.  I took note that representatives of all women in the continent of Asia laughed at me thinking I was asking for a girlfriend. So, not all Thai people are warm and wonderful.  Some are mocking.  

Night life of Thailand.  I am 58.  There are many TV stations offered at the hotel.  Some in English.  There are many soaps on Thai TV.  In every Thai soap opera, the mother says wise things to their children who sit patiently and listen to their mother.  The kids nod and then go on to playing head games with people of other genders—just like American children.  On Thai soaps, whenever the mother talks, they play flute music.  I don’t understand Thai, but I know that it’s the mother talking because she sounds wise and they are playing flute music.  I have bought a file of flute music that is now on my I-phone.  I will now play the flute music whenever I talk so people will think I am wise.  Try it.  It works.  If you play flute music while reading this, all my words take on added wisdom.  

I am about to embark on my 24+ hour plane trip home.  So I hope you enjoy these last sane words.  Sure United is about to engage me in a day’s worth of cramped seats, bad food in cramped trays, cramped terminals and probing airport security hands.  My life will be a solid day of disrespect, disregard and other words beginning with “dis-“.  But I get a lot of frequent flyer miles.  See you all soon.

Rick, December 29,2017