Edward Tufte’s post on touchscreens reminds me of this episode in particular where Nora and her guest, Mark Paterson, ponder how our latest gadgetery has rendered other media obsolete–whether, for example, “texting has obliterated the teenage love letter,” or whether the immateriality of MP3s and downloaded movies has removed us from the intimate tactile sensations of, in this case, actually flipping through a CD collection or sliding a VHS cassette into a VCR. However, rather than lament the demise of all things physical, weighty and tactile, the show posits — in true McLuhanesque fashion — that the ubiquitousness of established ‘newer media’ has the effect of prompting a nostalgic return (or revenge) of the old.

This might explain the trendiness of the Moleskine, which advertises itself, oddly enough, as “a symbol of latter-day nomadism, and [is] intimately tied to the digital world.” It might also explain why I enjoy tapping away on my manual typewriter on the weekends

Perhaps I haven’t explored the blogosphere enough, but I share Gabler’s worry that if a Marx or a Nietzsche were to suddenly appear online, likely few people would notice, because they’d be writing in a style that favours the micro-commentary (like this one) over the long-form essay or the revolutionary manifesto. They’d appear as just another information junkie among many who are there simply to collect, curate, share and shuffle the stuff of the Internet around without turning it into something capable of radically altering one’s view of the world. (Admittedly, formulaic term papers are rarely this ambitious either … and when undergraduates are this lofty, they’re usually instructed to tone it down and be realistic about what they can accomplish in 20 pages or less).

There is a Sears Boycott.

But, honestly, how dangerous can Zizek truly be in our world at this present conjuncture? If every regime needs an ideal-typical (1) Prince, (2) Poet and (3) Philosopher to provide the polity with a renewable source of respective (1) machinations, (2) interpretations and (3) evaluations, I fail to see how Zizek could come to represent either the Poet or the Philosopher of our age. He certainly is no Prince. To the contrary, if one wishes to call our current regime ‘liberal’ (however one chooses to hyphenate the word or add a prefix), it would be more accurate to say that Obama is one of our leading Princes; Lady Gaga is one of our leading Poets; and Hayek is one of our leading Philosophers. If one of the ends of critical theory is to unearth what is most worrisome (or latently dangerous) about an actually-existing regime, then starting with an audit of this trio (and similar trios) seems to be a far better point of departure than beginning with a critique of Zizek’s presumably authoritarian disposition. Indeed, so what if Zizek thinks dangerous thoughts?

I beg the ‘so what’ question not with the intent of diminishing the significance of his work, but to contest the compulsion to evaluate his worthiness from the vantage point of an assessment of the consequences that could conceivably result from translating supposedly heterodox positions into imprudent actions in the field of politics. Filippo Marinetti might have inspired Benito Mussolini. But, are we prepared to say that Marinetti was responsible for Mussolini or that the line dividing a Futurist aesthetic from a Fascist politics is incredibly thin–perhaps dangerously thin? The same rhetorical question seems to apply in the case of Zizek and the relationship between poesy and politics in his own work.

As the computer age dawned and new powers were handed to companies, organizations and schools, it became apparent quickly that people had started using the new abilities to sidestep writers, layout artists, designers and professionals of every description.

Articles, departmental publications and the like, began to “benefit” from this new-found freedom with the most atrocious and hideous parodies of “layout” and design. “Ads” were brought to agencies, already “laid out” by some young relative of the president, with demands for discounts on art and design billing, as they had paid their nephew once and further payments to others were now unnecessary.

The connection between the, lessened, but still continuing side-stepping of actual professionals, because of the new powers computing has brought us, is that we have new powers yes, but they don’t replace the already “standing on the shoulders of giants” powers of a University, yes to the power of us all, but to professionals in particular. Universities aren’t replaced by our new greater communication, research and access powers – they are enhanced.

The “other” tasks of the university, philosophically batted aside here, quite well I might add, of being the “gate-keeper” to access to high, or at least better, paying jobs is sadly similarly assisted by these new powers, and “online universities” are only the most legal, almost acceptable, form of the certificate forging that is so widespread already.

Certificate forging, which is so very similar to degree granting, is only one of the many natural outcomes of a world wide University system succumbing to commodification, like all systems succumb. Like American healthcare becomes insurance sales and treatment denials, like university health research becomes proprietary pills that cost $20,000.00 a year, like interpersonal relations and the need for intimate human contact become ‘celebrity’ and prostitution.

You comments about Canadian reaction is spot on.

Obama, on the other hand, is so full of enthusiasm that (no exaggeration) he brings tears to the eyes of many Canadians with hope about what the United States can be.

So many of us in Canada grew up feeling ambivalent about our bigger brother; the historical invasion we repulsed, the tacky tv, the arrogant visits, the crazy right — was always coupled with admiration for its creativity, it’s exuberance and it’s ability to reform itself, re-imagine itself and rededicate itself to its highest values.

I have felt the emotion you describe, I am impressed by Obama’s amazing ability to embody all that we hope for that huge experiment in democracy. If America can fall so far, so completely lose track of it’s soul, and still hold out a beacon as bright as Obama’s candidacy, that the Yes We Can video so poignantly elicits, then we are reassured that hope can arise unexpectedly in a degraded world. Inspiration indeed.

In the parable of the prodigal son, the brother who does not throw away his life in riotous waste is angry when that prodigal returns without consequence. As Canadians, we are instead joyous at America’s possible return to it’s soul, democracy, inclusion, peace and justice. The fact that something may soon be done about climate change the by the engine nation that is it’s biggest creator is just an added bonus.

Our Canadian equivalent in hope, is the fall of the hideous joke of our own government, those dedicated Bushites, who accidentally fell to power almost two years ago, just as America recognized how very very crazy their Bushites are.

We don’t like oratory in Canada. Or more accurately , we don’t like oratory from Canadians, as we seem to love Obama’s sweeping, paced declarations and invocations. Perhaps it is our character, distrusting anyone who takes these things, or themselves, so seriously. A chuckling Tommy Douglas explaining things is closer to our preferred style.

But I would love to hear Layton passionately, slowly and dramatically remind Canadians of our peacekeeping heritage, our distaste for poverty and injustice and the importance of stopping climate change. These are important things, and the next electoral contest will not be about small things.

As I was about to hit submit on this comment I found this video by Lawrence Lessig, the preeminent American writer/thinker/speaker on Intellectual property, civil rights in the modern age and the internet. In this video Mr. Lessig, movingly and skillfully lays out his reasons for endorsing Barack Obama. I warn you, it is twenty minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

I read and write all day for work, so reading for pleasure isn’t very pleasurable. Instead we listen to audio books. I’d say we go through about 40 a year. I’m not sure this study would count those.

http://www.learningatlightspeed.wordpress.com