The Corean Chronicles
Limits to Empowerment?
I do tend to worry about universal suffrage when something like a third of the American electorate doesn't even know who's president -- but then, again, that percentage has varied between 25% and 35% for at least 20 years, and we haven't had any more political catastrophes during this period than any other, although those who disparage the previous president tend to forget that we had a few problems with a man named Nixon, and moral and upright as he was personally, a fellow by the name of Carter wasn't exactly the most effective of chief executives... and even when suffrage wasn't even close to universal, we managed to elect Warren Harding.
But... as a writer and as an individual who believes in both the written and the spoken word, I have to ask whether we want to grant more power to those who cannot master, even if through no fault of their own, half of whatever language their culture uses to bind that part of civilization together. Writing changes culture, and, based on history, it does so for the better. Exactly why, at a time when written skills are declining, when a smaller and smaller percentage of so-called educated individuals have actually mastered the written word [according to a study released by the Department of Education three years ago, almost 40% of individuals with advanced college degrees do not have the analytical skills to explain the arguments in a standard newspaper article], why do we want to grant more power to those who cannot write and write at all?
We're already substituting test results for analytical skills in far too many school districts across the country. Newspapers are failing left and right because most people under thirty don't have either the inclination or the ability to read more than a sentence at a time, let alone a paragraph, and before long those of us who can and would like some detail in our news will be relegated to perusing a relative handful of printed or subscription online sources, because, so far as I can determine, there's less and less of a market for real news... just for sensationalism or for targeted "in-depth" rationalizations of what various groups of people already believe.
But then again, maybe we should expand the internet and website system so that no one has to master reading and writing -- and add an amendment to the Constitution that no one can run for public office without being able to explain in detail and on the spot and in writing what the duties of that office are and why he or she would be qualified to hold that post. We could even return to handwritten paper ballots at the same time.
All you'd have to do to be politically empowered would be able to read, write, and think. Would that be so bad?
It might be my folly to trust these few sources, but I find that international and other issues are often too complex to parse out meaning. I trust in the division of labor and allow an expert on Middle Eastern politics to analyze the raw material and tell me what the local movements mean in context.
As for empowering individuals, those that want to effect change may not be considering the incentives required to actually get someone to do something! I do encourage about getting more tools to people that could use them. My father cannot use his left hand, so voice transcription, for him, would increase his productivity. While the government shouldn't invest in my fathers software needs, I can understand how some African countries invest in cell phones for their farmers to check prices; same idea for internet access at libraries. What I don't approve of is providing incentives to people just because we want to feel good about more participation. Universal suffrage fits into this category; people shouldn't be compensated directly for voting. But neither should we provide disincentives for voting in the form of poll taxes or other hurdles.
With The Economist, I actually receive, through my RSS reader, the complete print edition on Thursdays, 2-4 days before I get the print edition in the mail.
Finally, I forgot to mention in the first post that I appreciate your choice to share your books with the world. Your systematic writing appeals to me. Authors that have their protagonists *find* the one thing that will defeat the antagonist, *surprise* at the last moment, annoy me. Your characters are well thought out, and the reader is given inklings about what will happen. Yet even with the inklings, you still create characters and story paths that keep me interested to the last page. Thank you.
I must be among that 40%, because I cannot find proper arguments in most newspaper articles. I find bias, reportorial misperceptions, and rhetorical flaws such as straw man arguments, appeals to authority or false authority, appeals to widespread beliefs, ad hominem attacks, etc.
I have abhorred most newspapers and news magazines for decades. Many political, economic, education, and business stories read more like blatantly biased editorials instead of objective news articles. (The New York Times is among the worst offenders.) Articles on technology, science, and medicine invariably get the facts wrong and draw unwarranted conclusions. Each year, nearly all newspapers and news magazines devote a greater percentage of pages to two subjects that are of no interest to me: celebrities and sports.
I am quite happy to view the demise of newspapers and news magazines. The internet offers myriad web sites for political, economic, medical, and scientific news and opinion. Some of these sites are created by amateurs, but they often outperform professional media.
: 4:27 PMThe internet is wonderful at delivering data, but it is good to remember that ALL communication is biased. I find that many of the internet sources are simply puerile polemic irregardless of whether I agree or disagree. I appreciate the polished thought that goes into many print magazines (NYT, WSJ, World Report, and others) whether or not I agree with their conclusions.
As for the internet, I haven't found a good source of accurate, nuanced, and thought-provoking prose on the internet. That costs money. I've seen some decent sources, but most of them are one-sided, highly specialized, and/or hidden behind a toll barrier. Free doesn't seem to coexist well with high-quality. I end up doing a lot of sifting to get decent information from the raw spigot of the internet.
Yesterday, newspapers put out a notice that a study claims that there is a link between Lantus insulin and cancer. Dozens of people then call the doctors I work with screaming that they are going to get cancer. Less than five seconds on google got me the exact document the researchers released with the studies findings. Conclusion: the results were inconsistent and inconclusive.
I'm sorry, I don't trust public news systems, they are always misleading and often outright wrong. I recently read your novel Octagonal Raven and I found it directly applicable to what you're talking about now Mr. Modesitt.
Those who can do something to change the course are either enjoying the present course or feel hand-tied. The rest are either lazy in that they don't want to make the sacrifices to get the power or make the change. Or, they are just plain ignorant, choosing to ignore the obvious or follow to the consequences of the course.
I don't know what to say beyond that, in the last few years, I have become increasingly depressed with the failings of my fellow Americans. Freedom is a good ideal and we are freely walking towards a base, barbaric future.
-Rob
<< Back to all Blog posts
