Wilma,
There is also the express faith in technology to solve our
human/social problems. Like the first ads for SUV's the Onstar ads
picture a person, alone, in some god-forsaken place where the only
life-line is to OnStar "to the rescue". Like Smartbombs or a bionic hip
these new devices can protect us from "them" and keep us independent, so
that we never have to be interdependent. Tech support for bourgeois
flight.
When I've been in seemingly dangerous or simply unfamiliar
circumstances, I've had to rely on the kindness of strangers (to quote
Ms. Dubois). I have always been surprised that when I feel the most
vulnerable I am often greeted with warmth, helpfulness and "God-forbid"
solidarity with those who know what it's like to have life come down on
them and need the help of a total stranger. It's helped me to recognize
that most "strangers" are not strangers at all, but are very "familiar"
to me. I am always delightfully surprised at the humanity of the
people; with whom each encounter acts as a sort of "meat tenderizer" on
my hip cynicism and untried altruism that I like to wear on my sleeve.
"Know thyself and get Onstar, no matter the cost, to save you from
becoming one of "them.""
Joe (can somebody loan me a dime?) Clarke
Wilma de Soto wrote:
Joe and Cindy, I am with you.
There's always a hook, as Joe said, such as watching illegal immigrants to
get us to accept more intrusion on our privacy.
One of the most insidious is the Onstar service available on some cars.
They lure with a sense of providing security and assistance in an emergency.
The downside is that there is technology that can locate you anywhere at all
times and what you're doing.
That makes me uncomfortable.
On 1/7/09 9:29 PM, "Joe Clarke" <philly.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cindy,
I agree. We've seen at the top how these powers of surveillance can
be abused. I'm sure that within the corrupt ranks of partisan
government that they are ripe to be abused some more. Remember that
watching the citizenry (and Mexicans) is a convenient distraction while
you are not watching the bankers, hedge funders and all those important,
influential people who almost brought down the world economy. The SEC,
FDA, FEMA and many other watchdogs had their regulatory teeth pulled by
the Bush/Cheney regime. If you can't trust them with Valerie Plame's
security cover then you can't really trust them at all.
Joe
Cindy Miller wrote:
I'm not real comfortable about the privacy issues-- however not being
a Constitutional scholar or a lawyer or anything--I can't put my
argument into flowing prose.
But something about it just doesn't feel right. Like cameras at
stoplights, or in elevators--or Ez-Pass--the argument that "well,
you're not doing anything wrong, so why should it bother you" just
isn't gettin' it for me....(The worst is a flashing sign on 38 in
Jersey that tells you to "REPORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR")
Wish I were better able to put words to this nagging feeling....
-cm
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
(Topic not suitable for UC Listserve?)
On Jan 6, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Brian Siano wrote:
campio...@juno.com <mailto:campio...@juno.com> wrote:
Separately, my husband was one of the first to send for the coupon
to buy the digital box. I think that when he did it, they were
giving two $40 coupons per family and also that there was some earl
bird special so that the boxes were only $40 each. So.. we got a
box, for our 22 year old TV, for the cost of S&H. We do NOT have
cable, but with the box, many of our stations now come in at cable
quality. This is great. No monthly cost and we are already
enjoying the benefit of much improved reception and additional local
channels. So far, there are only two down sides. My favorite
station was 12 and now it often reads "weak signal". (It is the
only station that is worse than before.) Second: When it is very
windy, sometimes the signal breaks for a second or two, and there
are weird skips or distortion on the screen. This seems a small
price to pay for the loss of fuzz and buzz. There is a third thing
that makes me a little nervous. The Digital box turns itself off
when there are no adjustments to sound or channel for a long period
of time. This might be very good for those who want to conserve
energy or are using the TV as a sedative and become too tired to
turn it off, but it seems to me as if someone could gather data on
individuals and on populations, regarding what we watch, when we
watch it, and when most of us are vulnerably asleep. But, I figure
the Advertisers are probably more of a nuisance than Big Brother
when it comes to TV and eventually I'll get a newer TV and maybe
even T-Vo(sp?).
Liz, I have TiVo . It is truly the Box of the Gods.
If you're concerned about 'big brother," you won't like it. Because
it does transmit your viewing preferences back to TiVo Central so it
can suggest programs that you might like. My suggestion? Stop
worrying about Big Brother, because it's just silly. For one thing,
what is broadcast on TV that's so compromising? _This Old House_?
_Frontline_? The Chomsky lecture on WYBE? For another, let's say
there is something on TV that's politically odd or "suspect." Why
should I let fear affect what I want to watch? That just invites the
censor within, the decision to _not_ watch or read something because
of the fear, which is more effective than anything the GuvMint can do.
And if you're worried about the TiVo people using the data to market
stuff to you... well, I haven't noticed any severe intrusions into my
personal life, and I've had TiVo for nearly ten years. And if they
market stuff at me, well, I just don't buy it.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
--
"Truth has a liberal bias".
Bill Moyer
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
