"... the product of the media, what appears, what doesn’t appear, the way it is slanted, will reflect the interest of the buyers and sellers, the institutions, and the power systems that are around them."
"You virtually never find anything in the social sciences that so strongly supports any conclusion."
Saturday, February 06, 2010
What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream
This is an analysis, by Noam Chomsky, of the mainstream media and the framework in which they operate. In short, the analysis leads to an inescapable conclusion:
Megadeth Smackdown Edition
Huckabee's rant against the United Nations is comical. Apparently, Huckabee considers himself to be a "civilized" person living in a "civilized" country as opposed to barbaric despots from other "less civilized" countries. This also reminds me of the Megadeth album United Abominations. I'm a big fan of Megadeth, but I'm not very big on the lyrics on United Abominations. Mark Leon Goldberg on the United Nations affairs blog to the rescue though. See the Megadeth Smackdown Edition
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Can SETI Succeed?
Interesting debate on the chance of success in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The late Ernst Mayr of Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology argues that the Earth is probably the only technological civilization in our galaxy, while Carl Sagan defends the more optimistic view.
One of Mayr's interesting hypothesis in the article which doesn't bode too well for us:
One of Mayr's interesting hypothesis in the article which doesn't bode too well for us:
... high intelligence is not at all favored by natural selection, contrary to what we would expect. In fact, all the other kinds of living organisms, millions of species, get along fine without high intelligence.
Scenes from the Slaughterhouse
Mismanagement?
My comments on the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone
The fact that the Iraqi occupation was bungled is not in much doubt anymore, and Rajiv Chandrasekaran documents the mismanagement well. That said, any book that doesn't challenge America's divine right to interfere in the affairs of other countries and not letting them choose for themselves leaves a lot to be desired.
Mismanagement? Yes -- we can all agree on that. But there is a more fundamental problem that has nothing to do with whether the occupation (illegal, of course) was managed or mismanaged, and that is the problem of imperialistic, military aggression and preemptive wars based on highly dubious pretexts (mushroom clouds, democracy etc.)
As a simple thought experiment (not a perfect analogy, but close), imagine a British correspondent wrote a book about the brutal Indian occupation and about how it was being mismanaged. Yes, the British would spend endless hours debating how they were managing their Raj, but as an Indian bearing the brunt of the occupation, I would find the mismanagement arguments rather irrelevant and farcical.
The fact that the Iraqi occupation was bungled is not in much doubt anymore, and Rajiv Chandrasekaran documents the mismanagement well. That said, any book that doesn't challenge America's divine right to interfere in the affairs of other countries and not letting them choose for themselves leaves a lot to be desired.
Mismanagement? Yes -- we can all agree on that. But there is a more fundamental problem that has nothing to do with whether the occupation (illegal, of course) was managed or mismanaged, and that is the problem of imperialistic, military aggression and preemptive wars based on highly dubious pretexts (mushroom clouds, democracy etc.)
As a simple thought experiment (not a perfect analogy, but close), imagine a British correspondent wrote a book about the brutal Indian occupation and about how it was being mismanaged. Yes, the British would spend endless hours debating how they were managing their Raj, but as an Indian bearing the brunt of the occupation, I would find the mismanagement arguments rather irrelevant and farcical.
Benevolent drug companies? Really?
This is my response to this article titled Drug giant GlaxoSmithKline pledges cheap medicine for world's poor
Whatever their real goals (humane or just a calculated ploy), a few observations below:
The US government already spends around $30 billion a year (for basic bio-medical research) via the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is a taxpayer subsidy to pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies always make it sound like it's all their investment and all their hard work, but $30 billion a year is from us public (the market itself could never generate enough money for research). So how come they still have so many strong patents ? The public has a right (it's not a lousy favor from someone) to the benefits of such funding in the form of cheaper drugs and limitations on patents. The government can even increase the funding via NIH and allow the public to gain even more control over the benefits accrued.
It's not clear to me who "patent pooling" is going to benefit and if there are better options such as allowing developing countries to manufacture generics. If "patent pooling" just means just sharing patents among competing pharmaceutical companies, then it may reduce wasteful duplication of research effort by the companies, but will it ultimately reduce the cost of the drugs the same way generics do?
If you read carefully, the article says that this might actually undermine the generics market. From the article -- "Campaigners privately say the move is remarkable, although they worry that it may undermine the generics industry which currently supplies the cheapest drugs in poor countries." and "Campaigners gave a cautious welcome to GSK's strategy. But Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières both said the company should go further and include HIV drugs in the patent pool, and warned that generics companies have always been able to offer lower prices than big pharma, because of their lower production costs."
The pharmaceutical companies will readily outsource "discovery" efforts to Bangalore etc. and reap the benefits of outsourcing, but when it comes to allowing Indian companies to manufacture generics cheaply, they get a heart-attack because it cuts into their profits (the fact that it saves lives is not a priority). The US will generally not purchase generic drugs from other countries where it is cheaper to produce (under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, of course), and organizations like the WTO etc. will prevent companies in other countries (the standard example is CIPLA/Tamiflu, but there are probably many such examples) from manufacturing generics
In general, we should look at the solutions being provided by pharmaceutical companies (no doubt due to public pressure) and consider their possible benefits, but also stop to consider: "Are there better solutions?"
Whatever their real goals (humane or just a calculated ploy), a few observations below:
The US government already spends around $30 billion a year (for basic bio-medical research) via the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is a taxpayer subsidy to pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies always make it sound like it's all their investment and all their hard work, but $30 billion a year is from us public (the market itself could never generate enough money for research). So how come they still have so many strong patents ? The public has a right (it's not a lousy favor from someone) to the benefits of such funding in the form of cheaper drugs and limitations on patents. The government can even increase the funding via NIH and allow the public to gain even more control over the benefits accrued.
It's not clear to me who "patent pooling" is going to benefit and if there are better options such as allowing developing countries to manufacture generics. If "patent pooling" just means just sharing patents among competing pharmaceutical companies, then it may reduce wasteful duplication of research effort by the companies, but will it ultimately reduce the cost of the drugs the same way generics do?
If you read carefully, the article says that this might actually undermine the generics market. From the article -- "Campaigners privately say the move is remarkable, although they worry that it may undermine the generics industry which currently supplies the cheapest drugs in poor countries." and "Campaigners gave a cautious welcome to GSK's strategy. But Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières both said the company should go further and include HIV drugs in the patent pool, and warned that generics companies have always been able to offer lower prices than big pharma, because of their lower production costs."
The pharmaceutical companies will readily outsource "discovery" efforts to Bangalore etc. and reap the benefits of outsourcing, but when it comes to allowing Indian companies to manufacture generics cheaply, they get a heart-attack because it cuts into their profits (the fact that it saves lives is not a priority). The US will generally not purchase generic drugs from other countries where it is cheaper to produce (under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, of course), and organizations like the WTO etc. will prevent companies in other countries (the standard example is CIPLA/Tamiflu, but there are probably many such examples) from manufacturing generics
In general, we should look at the solutions being provided by pharmaceutical companies (no doubt due to public pressure) and consider their possible benefits, but also stop to consider: "Are there better solutions?"
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Objectified
Objectified is a fairly interesting documentary about the design of objects in our daily lives and the designers who make them. The film features interviews with a variety of influential designers discussing their thoughts about the meaning of design, the objects that get produced, and the relationship between objects, humans, and the environment.
Sustainability gets some brief treatment which can be summarized by Alice Rawsthorn's comment that sustainability is not driven by the designers, rather it's consumer driven -- and that supposedly Walmart has embraced sustainability. If she's using Walmart as a prime example of sustainability, it's quite worrisome. Also, according to Rawsthorn, "design tends to be the indulgent medium of the developed economy and a mature culture." Apparently, other "developing countries" aren't as mature.
Jonathan Ive talks about how incredibly hard design is. Mark Newson heavily criticizes children's products, and can't wait to get rid of his child's high chair. Paolo Antonelli has collected 172 definitions of design. Andrew Blauvelt defines design as anything that is touched by man, transformed by man. Chris Bangle goes on and on and on about the design of the BMW X6.
Dieter Rams makes an interesting statement: "If I had to do something in this world again, I would not want to be a designer anymore, because I believe, in the future, it will be less important to have many things, but more important to exercise care about where and how we live. And to think carefully how we can preserve nature."
Rob walker talks (critically) about how "good design" is considered to be a mark of progress, and how if you can recognize good design, it distinguishes you from all the naive and corny bourgeois of the past -- the past being everything up to that minute. Corporations don't necessarily design what people need, but rather their goal is to simply produce more stuff.
Some objects are downright fetishized such as a BMW X6, a valentine typewriter, and an Alessi spoon that will supposedly stimulate four out of the five senses. There are some interesting discussions on how an object should go beyond its functional aspect and establish a meaningful emotional relationship with the human being. Unfortunately, I think this is just wishful thinking. The novelty of objects dies fast, and any supposedly meaningful relationship with an object is always fleeting and unsatisfactory. In fact, a designer in the film admits that most of the products he's designed will end up in a landfill pretty soon.
The documentary ends with the following quote: "The value, and especially the legitimization of design will be in the future measured in terms of how it can enable us to survive."
Overall, I think the film presents a decent coverage of the various points of view on design, but unfortunately, it also reflects an obsession with materialism, a perceived sense of superiority, and a state of affairs that has a long way to go before it can reach any level of sustainability.
Don't forget to watch the special features on the DVD which includes a whole bunch of interesting interviews.
Sustainability gets some brief treatment which can be summarized by Alice Rawsthorn's comment that sustainability is not driven by the designers, rather it's consumer driven -- and that supposedly Walmart has embraced sustainability. If she's using Walmart as a prime example of sustainability, it's quite worrisome. Also, according to Rawsthorn, "design tends to be the indulgent medium of the developed economy and a mature culture." Apparently, other "developing countries" aren't as mature.
Jonathan Ive talks about how incredibly hard design is. Mark Newson heavily criticizes children's products, and can't wait to get rid of his child's high chair. Paolo Antonelli has collected 172 definitions of design. Andrew Blauvelt defines design as anything that is touched by man, transformed by man. Chris Bangle goes on and on and on about the design of the BMW X6.
Dieter Rams makes an interesting statement: "If I had to do something in this world again, I would not want to be a designer anymore, because I believe, in the future, it will be less important to have many things, but more important to exercise care about where and how we live. And to think carefully how we can preserve nature."
Rob walker talks (critically) about how "good design" is considered to be a mark of progress, and how if you can recognize good design, it distinguishes you from all the naive and corny bourgeois of the past -- the past being everything up to that minute. Corporations don't necessarily design what people need, but rather their goal is to simply produce more stuff.
Some objects are downright fetishized such as a BMW X6, a valentine typewriter, and an Alessi spoon that will supposedly stimulate four out of the five senses. There are some interesting discussions on how an object should go beyond its functional aspect and establish a meaningful emotional relationship with the human being. Unfortunately, I think this is just wishful thinking. The novelty of objects dies fast, and any supposedly meaningful relationship with an object is always fleeting and unsatisfactory. In fact, a designer in the film admits that most of the products he's designed will end up in a landfill pretty soon.
The documentary ends with the following quote: "The value, and especially the legitimization of design will be in the future measured in terms of how it can enable us to survive."
Overall, I think the film presents a decent coverage of the various points of view on design, but unfortunately, it also reflects an obsession with materialism, a perceived sense of superiority, and a state of affairs that has a long way to go before it can reach any level of sustainability.
Don't forget to watch the special features on the DVD which includes a whole bunch of interesting interviews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)