"Smarter" carsl? Bonus Post 2

Lindenberger, Michael. "Cars May Soon Have More to Tell Us." Chicago Tribune. 21 June 2010: section 1, page 22.

The Department of Transportation is looking at a black box for your car that will transmit and receive continuous traffic data. Ray LaHood, the Transportation secretary who has led the charge against txting by drivers, touts the potential of the technology to manage traffic and keep drivers safer.

Pilot programs underway already in Dallas have installed boxes in cars that communicate with other cars and traffic managers who can use software to make decisions about police response or send out messages about traffic tieups. Continuously transmitted information eventually will include speeds, route data, and location.

Equipped cars will be able to tell dozing drivers to wake up and brake automatically if there's danger ahead. This technology is already available as an option on luxury cars like BMW.

Think of the pluses! Cops will be able to track or stop a car that has been involved with a crime-- maybe even conveniently in front of the police station. Who needs red light cameras? The car will just confess for you. I'm thinking of starting a prepayment fund for the speeding tickets I'll collect. Wait. I won't be able to speed anymore because my car will stop me.

And wouldn't this be great for Homeland Security in a Little Brother world?

The Truth is Out There Somewhere--Isn't It? (Post 5)

Goodman, J. David. "Now in Blogs, Product Placement." The New York Times, Sunday, June 13, 2010, pg. 3.

NBC News at 5, Monday, June 14, 2010.

Sachdev, Ameet. "Blogger Eventually Cites Jackson Ties." Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, June 15, 2010, pg. 19

All right, I know that only in the contorted randomness of my mind do these three things have any relationship. On the other hand, the connection really bothers me.

In 1976, I watched Network, a really dark comedy that dealt with the trend toward changing television news from a reliable information source into another entertainment show. The "new" news showcased beautiful talking heads, brought in a live audience, featured a seer, introduced a segment "Vox Populi" that gave poll results, and starred an insane, charismatic anchor who began every segment by shouting, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

Flash forward--and take a look at news websites and television newscasts. They invariably--with the possible exceptions of the seer and the mental status of the anchor--mirror all of the things that amused me with their sardonic impossibility in the movie. Stories are open to comment, a daily poll asking for opinion is featured, O'Reilley, Limbaugh, Olberman, et. al have obsessed fan clubs, and blogs are a featured link.

In the Times article, an extraordinary number of Brooklyn blogs feature a reference to Absolut vodka. The reporter discovers that the bloggers have been paid for product placement. The second article from the Tribune reports that a noted legal blogger for the Huffington Post and frequent guest on Fox News had blogged that Jesse Jackson, Jr. was clearly blameless in the Blagovich senate seat for sale mess; it turns out she has a direct, financial link to Jesse Jackson, Sr. And, wow, on last night's local newscast, Ellen DeGeneres made a "spontaneous, unplanned" appearance right after the report on the Blagovich trial.

I really want to keep current on the affairs that matter in my world. I accept my responsibility for evaluating information. But what do I do when I can't rely on the good faith of others to accept and abide by the same ethical tenants?

The First Amendment grants absolute freedom of the press as one of the essential cornerstones to our social contract. But shouldn't there perhaps be some requirement of honesty and incorruptibility beyond libel and/or defamation?

Bonus Post

So have we traded the Bill of Rights for convenience?

I log into Amazon and it welcomes me by name. Netflix offers me personal suggestions based on ratings I've volunteered in large part because I get a rush out of the number of movies I've watched. I always accept the user agreement on ITunes because I'm in a hurry to get the download so I can move on to something else on the to do list. And God forbid that I have to wait a second longer on the SkyWay to dig out the $3 bucks; the IPass transponder linked to my checking account means that I cruise through the toll gates to get to the airport or the real fun faster.

Everything I've mentioned is completely voluntary--and thoughtless. I've chosen to give up the Fourth Amendment because it makes my life easier. How about the rest of you?

Why? Because we'd all prefer to live in the world of Locke and Rousseau, even though we really think that Hobbes was right. I know that I can be trusted because I'm good, but I'm not really sure about the rest of you.

This strange dichotomy means that we love Marcus's mom, but most of us in this class are actually his dad. (Sorry, Derek. Some day I'd really actually like to meet you.) We really want to believe in the ultimate goodness of people, but we're realistic and cynical enough to know that there are way too many people who see us as targets. Worst of all, there's my real, true level of bigotry: stupid. Ignorant can be fixed, but stupid is forever. I don't really think any of these philosophers ever really dealt with dumb and lazy, which are, unfortunately, very real parts of my real life.

Besides, like Van in Little Brother, we'd rather those we care about be protected.

I think this post really sucks, so don't comment if you read it. It's way too likely to just go away--but if you have terrific skills, even when I disappear it, you can find it.

This class makes my head hurt. But since thinking helps keeps me away from the final dirt nap, maybe that's not so bad.