Twitter, Garbage

According to its website,

"Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?"

It then explains,

"Why? Because even basic updates are meaningful to family members, friends, or colleagues—especially when they’re timely.

* Eating soup? Research shows that moms want to know.
* Running late to a meeting? Your co–workers might find that useful.
* Partying? Your friends may want to join you."

Now excuse the following rant, but ...

Evidently, I am not entirely against new media. I think the idea of broadcasting one's ideas on the web (blogging) can have very meaningful uses. Amongst its many advantages, you can publish thoughts in a modern, accessible way, incorporating all that the web has to offer: links, videos, etc. making for what can often be better-expressed ideas. For example, rather than just reviewing a movie, one can actually link a reader to the clip of discussion. It allows those who might not have the expertise or time for the creation of a real website to contribute in their own way to the web. It also gives people a voice that might not otherwise be heard. Finally, it allows others to quickly and easily respond to what has been said, creating some fragment of a forum, which can be helpful for the purpose of gauging where your thoughts might stand with others.

In essence, a blog provides an opportunity to actually communicate and discuss ideas in a relatively public, profitable and thorough manner.

Blogging has its own downsides. For instance, there are thousands of blogs, and like many things in such vast quantity, their quality varies substantially. There are also issues of copyright and plagiarism that are hard to control throughout the web. (This last, actually, might just be part of a larger problem, relating to the lack of legal foundations with regards to the web...but I won't get into that now.) Yet, in its short lifespan, blogging has really established itself as a reasonable medium for communicating ideas.


Twitter, on the other hand, I see little value in. First, it serves a niche that no one really knew existed. Secondly, it creates what could be described as life spam. Finally, it is the self-sacrificing of one of the last vestiges of privacy (those few moments you have away from CCTV etc.). To no one's surprise, I don't actually really care if someone starts work at 4, just saw the cutest puppy, is craving chocolate cake, has to go to the washroom or is now really relieved that they went go to the washroom. In a society where we are bombarded by 24 hour headlines and snippets, do we really need to create our own? There seems to be more information with less substance than ever before. There are far more important things to concern one's self with than something crammed into 140 characters or less. Technology has facilitated the publishing and dissemination of information; Twitter is a devolution in the advancements in communication this has afforded us.

Rather than force us to enter the trivialities of one's private life, it would be far more fruitful to accumulate those 140 characters and actually write something thoughtful, without abbreviations that someone in their right mind might actually find useful, insightful or remotely interesting. (see other forms of new media to see how - blogging for instance) With the last few ounces of privacy that still remain under our own control, there is no need to give it away using Twitter. I have found that Twitter seems to only emphasized the mundane nature of most people's lives. Next there will be some way for companies to analyze "tweets" so that they might target advertising to individuals. Picture this: you tweet that you are fed up with your phone company. Immediately you receive a phone call from someone trying to sell you a new phone service.

Remember when you had real conversations with people? When you could ask them "What did you do today?" without knowing already every little banal detail? These are questions that Twitter users must answer. The thrill of mystery cannot be understated, nor can the vapidity of the every day lives of the vast majority of people. Keep it to yourself, if you have something real to say, write it articulately and eloquently without character limits. Then, choose your audience purposefully and you will reap the reward of people actually caring about what you have to say.

For now, I will stick to blogging: A medium through which real ideas can be properly communicated.

(Ironically, the guy who helped invent blogspot is the same guy who invented Twitter...I think there is something to be said about lightning not striking twice in the same spot.)

-HG

Political Style

For a minute, it seemed like politics had regained some popularity in the United States. Electoral pre-amble seems to reignite some sort of flame under the American people, yet when push comes to shove, the voter turnout is always the same. It seems every electoral year, politics falls out of style faster than FUBU. Why?

I’m not sure that I have the answer to this question in entirety, but perhaps delving into a discussion on the matter will enlighten us in some respects.

In fact, this incipit is not entirely true. We quite enjoy politics… just in a different way.
Our fascination extends beyond our brief courting of it pre-election: think Jacqueline Onassis Kennedy, Che Guevara’s face, Churchill’s cigar, Mao’s Mole, Ben Franklin’s glasses… you chose the icon. We are obsessed with the grand images of leaders of old. The politics of today are what bores us.

Why do we remember them?

In one superhero movie, the following is said “People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.” Another prevalent scholar noted “Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.”

The point is that image is everything if you want to “live forever” in the minds of the people. Batman realized that by using a costume he allowed himself to approach some form of immortality. Machiavelli’s The Prince is a manual describing which tactics to employ so that the prince might retain power. He dwells on the Prince’s image in the eyes of his people … and how to make the longest-lasting impression on them. It can be seen as a way for the prince to achieve immortality.

It seems that the image of the statesmen goes through a couple stages. The intention, as prescribed by Machiavelli, is to create a long-lasting reputation. Some do this with policy, others with physical image. However, time dictates how one appears in the annals of history. Therefore, despite their efforts, statesmen (and stateswomen) have a tendency to have a different legacy from the one they had imagined. To quote Gladiator, “How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? The warrior? The tyrant...? Or will I be the emperor who gave Rome back her true self?”

The stages:

First, there is an attempt to establish one’s self as an icon, that is a figure that is timeless, that will be remembered. (essentially the above-outlined ideas) The purpose of this is to create some type of legacy, a way to be remembered past one’s tenure as leader. Just look at the final terms of many past presidents or any King or Queen. Remember Qin Shi Huang’s Terra Cotta warriors? Or King Tut’s tomb?

Secondly, the “icon” image becomes something comparable to a costume. Consider Churchill’s cigar, Lincoln’s beard or Napoleon’s style. Were these accessories really necessary?

Lastly, as historical distance separates the present from these past characters, there is a branding stage. Yes, like marketing branding. Look at Che’s face… look at what Obama’s profile is becoming. The artist who created the now famous red white and blue Andy Warholesque pop-art campaign poster is selling his pieces for thousands of dollars. The idea is that an icon achieves something approximating logo status. Consequently, important figures are distilled into trademarks rather than ideas.

From our present vantage point, we can identify most of these historical characters. Unfortunately, they remain just iconic faces in our memories. Was Churchill a conservative or a liberal? Did you know that Napoleon was one of the first heads of state to provide Europe with a legal code? It is one of the most influential documents in the history of law. Did you know that John Fitzgerald Kennedy, America’s darling president, increased American forces in Vietnam from 800 to 16, 300 in what some historians consider the point of no-return culminating in the Vietnam war? Why then is he so popular? Because his wife was one of the most influential figures in style in the last 100 years?

In essence, my fear is that we forget what truly made these figures important. Though we undoubtedly will remember Barrack Obama as America’s first African American President, it is my fear that his promises (and presumably, or rather hopefully, his policies) will be equally recalled: multilateralism, universal healthcare, separation of state and interest groups etc. Somehow I sense that a hundred years from now, his photogenic looks and oratory skills will overshadow his actions.

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

Like Ghandi’s talisman, we should remember icons for what they represent, political persons for what they stood for.

Keffiyeh, Shmagh, Shemagh, Yashmag, Ghutra, Hatta, Mashada or Terrorist Scarf?

(a man wearing a Keffiyeh)

An advertisement in the US has been pulled following complaints that the scarf worn by the celebrity endorser is too closely associated with extremist videos. That would be, Dunkin Donuts pulled an ice-coffee internet ad, after Rachel Ray’s sporting of a Keffiyeh was interpreted as a symbol associated with terrorism. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin described the scarf as "a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos."

(Rachel Ray and Scarf)

In fact, the Palestinian Keffiyeh became a symbol of nationalism stemming from its use by farmers in rural Palestine who often wore it, more out of utility than as a symbol. Their tie to the land creates an obvious association that led such an accessory to symbolize this state’s nationalism.

To the extent that it can be associated with Yasser Arafat and his policies, the scarf can be associated with T. E. Lawrence, Orientalism and with being a tool for keeping sand out of one’s face (amongst other survival uses). Mr. Arafat was often pictured wearing the scarf, in what became somewhat of a trademark. T. E. Lawrence, also known as “Lawrence of Arabia”, champion of the Arab revolt, helped unite a fractured Arab people and oust their Ottoman occupiers. The image of him wearing a Keffiyeh has been etched into history along side his remarkable accomplishments in uniting and leading the Arab force in revolt. The Orientalist movement also depicted this scarf in its artwork, influencing Europeans’ perception of the Near East for centuries, whether for good or for bad. (The scholar Edward Said has written extensively about the adverse effects of Orientalism on the West’s past perception of the region) In essence, the link between terrorism and a scarf is comparable to that between a neck-tie and capitalism. Although one can try to relate a neck-tie to CEOs etc. generally, it is really only an accessory used by most men (and some women) for the purpose of formal dressing, and in fact embodies to no degree an economic ideology.

(T. E. Lawrence)

Like Che’s face on the front of countless T-shirts, the Keffiyeh has become more than a symbol. Unlike how jihad actually means “struggle” but in the Western world has come to be associated entirely with religious war, the Keffiyeh has become occidentally incorporated as a fashion statement. It is unlikely that most of those wearing the sometimes ubiquitous t-shirt actually have an appreciation or understanding of the revolutionary movements Che led in Cuba, Bolivia and the Congo, his education in medicine, the influence a motorcycle trip around South America had on him, or the influence he had on such people as Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and Jean-Paul Sartre. He was not only a symbol of a socialist revolution, but one of the most important figures of the last 60 years. To be honest, I don’t really know why so many people chose to wear his face on their chest. It can be assumed that he would not be in acquiescence with the marketing tool that one photograph has become. But I digress…

(Che, pre-revolutionary)

The importance of emphasizing the Keffiyeh in all of its significances is how it fails to evoke terrorism. Whether its traditional implications are recognized, its usage by important historical figures appreciated or there is a complete disassociation and its value as an apolitical fashion accessory appreciated, it is simple-minded, and dare I say, uninformed or ignorant to reduce the scarf to a symbol of terrorism.

Equating the scarf with terrorism, or rather insisting upon stemming its use as it evokes terrorism, suggests a level of causality that this scarf has somehow led to terrorism. Further, Pants were probably also a “regular adornment” of terrorists in the above-mentioned videos; I suppose their propensity for causing terrorism is yet to be determined. Yet, the purpose served of the Keffiyeh in this instance, that of nationalism, is the same purpose a flag serves when it flies above an army base in Iraq, or in the form of a pin on the President’s lapel when he delivers a speech. It represents a set of values. Though a flag, or similar symbols such as the scarf, does manifest a state’s policies, such a symbol used by discordants can sever this manifestation. The flag loses its nationalist connection.

Though symbols can change their significance as with the abovementioned Che example, it takes a plurality of people. A symbol’s meaning is held with this majority, a group that has an understanding of the meaning behind such symbols, and a realization of when such a symbol is erroneously used, such as by discordants. When the majority opinion changes, the symbol changes it’s meaning. Until that moment, a misused symbol becomes a glaring error or beacon of misrepresentation rather than something furthering a minority cause, as in the example of terrorism. Consequently, rather than retain this inaccurate beacon status, the flag or scarf retains its original significance.

The Dunkin Donuts reaction to the Keffiyeh does not accurately reflect the scarf as it is seen by a plurality of people. (Especially amongst those who use it) Instead, it represents a major misinterpretation and a complete wrongful association of a symbol to a cause.

In sum, Dunkin Donuts should be more concerned about the deaths it causes from its own products than those it causes from the support it supposedly rallies behind Rachel Ray’s scarf. Who is the real terrorist? Don’t answer that…


-HG


(click here for more information from the BBC)