Web Commonerpolitics, social commentary, and ramblings on pop culture

I was only four years old when Walter Cronkite relinquished his post as anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” and it would be many years into his retirement before I would understand and appreciate the true value of his character, or the full weight of his worth in terms of contributions that he made to the world of journalism and the respect he received from a nation of millions. My memories of Cronkite’s most popular moments are not unique, just recorded glimpses of the man’s stern yet warm delivery of the news as captured in time for the history books to later relay. Many in the baby boomer generation held him in such high regard that he earned the nickname, “Uncle Walter,” a testament to his ability to invade their living rooms each night with the sense of a beloved family member. They welcomed him with open arms, sometimes to receive some of the most disheartening news to hit the nation in the last half-century.

In Cronkite’s time, television was different. People peered into CRT monitors spilling duotone images of black and white into their living rooms. Sound came from a single channel, and “rabbit ear” antennas topped TV sets to receive the only signals available to viewers at the time, broadcasts from three major networks captured over the air. Of course, three networks meant three channels, which broadcast news programming for little more than 30 minutes each night. There was no means for recording what you missed, which meant that information-savvy citizens always knew exactly where they would be and what they would be doing once Walter hit the airwaves to deliver the daily news. At the evening’s end, the sound of a single tone and a screen-saver-like image indicated the end of a network’s daily programming, as if acting as an alarm to alert sleepy Americans that they overstayed their visit to TV land.

This nightly ritual between Cronkite, his network, and his constituency continued for nearly twenty years, through the civil rights and women’s liberation movements, the first lunar landing, Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon impeachment, and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He endured sweeping change within the business of broadcast news, including the introduction of new competing networks, finally relieving himself of his duty not long before federal action brought cable technology to people’s homes in droves, along with a multitude of new channels. Cronkite seemed to disappear from public life temporarily, but a new generation of news hounds were fortunate enough to rediscover the man after he broke silence to deliver opinion-oriented editorial pieces in publications and on the radio throughout the last decade, which focused on everything from politics to the media.

It was in these moments, on the quiet drive home from work, that I welcomed Walter Cronkite, now a seasoned veteran, into my world. I listened intently as his signature voice, confident and adept, brought me into those old living rooms to relive crucial turning points in our country’s sorted history. His radio essays drew heavily on decades of professional experience, reflecting the challenges that he and his colleagues faced as reporters tasked to cover emotionally charged and politically sensitive events with objective eyes and ears. As I look back at Mr. Cronkite’s career, it would appear to me that his legacy is not really about how he delivered the news to millions each night. Instead, it’s about how he delivered information to people that was pure and unfiltered. Walter leaves this world at a point in our history when an evolving news landscape seeks to, once again, change how we organize and deliver new information. His legacy will serve as a sort of signpost, steering us clear from selfishly seeking out information that we want to know and instead pointing us in a direction towards getting the information that we need to know.

Thanks Uncle Walter. We will remember you always.

New evidence of Michael Jackson’s influence is popping up throughout the Internet in the form of tributes to the deceased entertainer. Friends and fans alike are passing along links to websites like Eternal Moonwalk, where a continuous loop of home videos shows people performing Jackson’s signature move. Other homages highlight his artistic genius, and one particular YouTube user is publishing video mash-ups that combine Jackson’s music with old footage of song-and-dance icons perceived to be his artistic inspirations from entertainment’s past. Check out the following series of clips that chronicle evidence of a historical evolution behind what eventually came to be Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalk.”

Other videos on the page carefully combine edited clips of “West Side Story” with Jackson’s “Beat It” and “Bad,” or clips of Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse dancing to Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal,” all skillfully crafted to demonstrate the entertainer’s obvious affinity towards show tunes, and their influence on his music, dance and videos. The significant difference between those historical gems and Jackson’s own art are the media that presented them, the silver screen versus MTV and the boob tube, which invariably led me to ponder how artistic influence gets recycled over time and through different mediums. As technology evolves and cultures change, valued art from the past gets passed on to succeeding generations, and shared influence continues to turn the wheels of inspiration, progress, and innovation.

Recently, Coldplay’s smash hit, “Viva La Vida,” sparked controversy over whether or not the British band lifted their song’s signature tune from an earlier recording of Joe Satriani’s “If I Could Fly.” The Internet and, more specifically, YouTube, became a sort of advanced interactive medium for fans to compare the music, discuss its transference, and indirectly share its inspiration and influence. To make matters more interesting, convincing compositions by other musicians including Enanitos Verdes and Cat Stevens got thrown into the mix, spanning almost twenty years of artistic works that seemingly influenced other works. Much of the matter’s discussion seems reminiscent of conversations that took place at the turn of the century when advances in production technologies brought Hip-Hop culture from block parties to the recording studio as artists began sampling old recordings to create entirely new music compositions.

In a society that sets high standards on the use of copy-written material, technology is once again testing the limits of artistic progress, and rekindling conversations that take place over the influence of past works. In the United States, arguments over copyright material are historically settled within the confines of America’s courtrooms, but new ideas fostering the free sharing of information via the Internet threatens to blow the hinges off the system’s doors. In the not-so-distant past, peer-to-peer sharing showed signs of destroying the business of record companies, which held a monopoly on music distribution, and lawsuits only gained them enough time to restructure their business models. Today, social networking sites like YouTube are excellent examples of mediums that allow for gross sharing of artistic property and ideas. Meanwhile, a new generation of entrepreneurs is setting aside outdated practices of intellectual protectionism by embracing a culture of sharing, most notably in open-source software development.

Regardless of which way the wind blows on future copyright law, shared influence among artistic works remains a powerful force that inspires human progress and innovation through time, a sort of transference of such subtle references to the past that they can quickly and easily be forgotten. Throughout human history, the past is what shapes our future and, since the day we learned to stand upright and speak, that yearning to share what we know and how we came to know it lingers within, like the blood flowing through our veins. It’s generally accepted that you cannot get something from nothing, especially within the spectacular realm of the shared human experience. So, without Copernicus, there would be no Galileo. Without Greek philosophy, no Roman democracy. Without Chuck Berry, no Beatles and, of course, without Fred Astaire, no Michael Jackson.

Side-stepping the urge to fulfill my role as a member of the “chattering class,” I thought it might be more constructive to provide Sarah Palin with an annotated analysis of her writing, which specifically focuses on the op-ed piece she wrote for the The Washington Post yesterday.

Edits, notes, and suggestions to Mrs. Palin are visible in red or bold typeface …

The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to provide examples]. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than over 25 years, and it is expected to continue climbing [Who expects this ... economists, you, your accountant?]. Worries are widespread [Again ... Tell us exactly who's worried ... Americans, Alaskans, garbage workers?] that the recovery won’t bring create jobs, even when the economy finally rebounds. Our nation’s The national debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather prefer to focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges [What challenges?]. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind, and where my focus will be remains:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to dedicate a sentence or two explaining the president's cap-and-trade energy plan in further detail to your readers]. It The plan would undermine our the economy’s recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy [Historical examples would be a good addition here]. Particularly in In Alaska, we understand the inherent links between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge large, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax [Is it a plan or a tax? You should be more clear about what it is and why] would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how].

There is no denying that, as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources [According to who, and why?]. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive [Please elaborate. My understanding is that renewable energy sources are just that ... sources]! Those who understand the issue [It would probably be a good idea to provide further insight into who 'those' people are ... Republicans, conservatives, fifth graders?] know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy [I'm hoping that you will soon explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan will destroy the economy].

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax [I'm getting confused ... now it's a "cap-and-tax" plan?] plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years [This sentence is wordy. Try saying this instead ... "The president's cap-and-trade plan ensures job losses by including provisions that accommodate newly unemployed workers from its dried-up energy sector, costing $4.2 billion over eight years." Even after re-wording your sentence, I still don't know what it means]. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising increased cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax president’s plan. For example, it will increase the cost of farming will certainly increase, by driving down farm incomes down while and driving up grocery prices up [Now would be a good opportunity to provide an example that explains how]. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase [Again ... explain how].

What is tThe ironic beauty inherent in this the president’s plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics [You may want to consider explaining "supply-side economics" to your readers (liberal and conservative) and insert relevance to your primary point here].

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket. [Insert quote source and context here]” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year [Please explain your point further in the context of cap-and-trade ... using statistics or numbers would probably make sense].

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent [Redundant ... try another word. Consult thesaurus if necessary] Obama supporter, admitted that, under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity. [Insert quote source and context here]”

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil [Is your inserting God into this sentence relevant to the argument?]. Just as Equally important, we Americans have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation that currently imports our from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America the United States. We Alaskans can could also safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal resources, whose and new technology is continuously making transforming it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally [I think you mean figuratively] sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan would outsource energy to other countries].

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how drilling for oil, building new gas pipelines and nuclear power plants, and burning more coal protects the environment], therefore revive reviving our economy and secure securing our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, Sarah Palin, is a Republican, is and governor of Alaska.

I love you guys. I really do. I’m one of those PC converts who, over the years, went from having two Windows-based desktop computers in the house to a MacBook Pro, Mac Mini in the living room, Time Capsule to back it all up, and three iPods for non-stop entertainment on the go. While Microsoft’s XP efforts were appreciated, I simply got tired of weaving through the cobweb-like process of organizing a library of digital media that seemed to grow exponentially by the minute. OS X not only makes it easy, but stimulates creativity at the same time and actually invokes fun. So, after a lifetime of recording my own beloved music mixes to analog tape or burning 15 or so select songs to a compact disc, I cannot put in words how vamped I was to discover smart playlists in iTunes. This was the turning point when I finally chose a side, and it seemed as if my feelings on the matter were so strong that there would be no turning back. Mac for life, right?

Music is my vice, my addiction, and my lifeblood in most circumstances. I need it to survive, and I need it to follow some sort of creative order, or else it’s just background noise. I listen to all kinds of music from Rock to Rap, Jazz to Country, Folk to Metal, and R&B to Electronic. My method for organizing it is fairly straight-forward, and involves keeping everything properly categorized, which results in songs being played in the right context. For me, this means adding comments to individual tracks or albums that will blend genres with the help of smart playlists, which I cater to express a specific mood or theme. It works perfectly and, to this day, I’m awestruck and amazed by the capabilities granted to us by simple, free applications like iTunes. I love the idea of setting a few simple parameters that throw three or four hundred compatible-sounding songs into a playlist and granting your playback device permission to pick their play order for you. This instills in me a childlike sense of angst that leaves me guessing in anticipation what the next song or artist may be. However, ask any professional DJ and they will tell you that there are rules to follow when playing music in this manner, and the one that seems to be universally understood is that you don’t play the same artist two times in a row.

This brings me to my personal yet public plea to Apple, and I hope someone out there in the upper echelons is listening. I understand that randomization does not mean even distribution. It’s fairly straight forward. Flip a coin ten times and there’s still a chance that it will land tales every time, and that’s still random. If one of my playlists features an artist that is weighted significantly higher in content than others, I understand the chances of that artist’s music ending up snuggled closer together within the confines of that playlist. Still, I’m not interested in my device shuffling music at random. All I’m asking my iPod to do is find a way to ensure that artists do not play back-to-back, at least within the first 30 or 40 songs of a playlist that boasts three or four hundred tracks. If that means you create a formula that throws most of the heavily weighted artist’s music to the back of the line in order to give others a chance at playback, so be it. At least I won’t want to rip my iPod out of its docking station and pitch it against the wall every time I hear the same artist or, even worse, the same artist from the same album played back-to-back within a playlist featuring a wider pool than my local Clear Channel radio station.

I may be wrong, but it would appear that iTunes once allowed its users to indicate how likely it should be for its software to repeat the same songs, or artists, or albums. In fact, I know this feature existed because the urge to toss my iPod out the window when this happens suddenly disappeared and made me a very happy person for a short while. There must have been at least a year, maybe two, of listening bliss, rare sightings of back-to-back servings of the same artist, and then Apple updated iTunes to 8.0 … gone. It’s gone. They dropped the feature and feelings of pent up rage once again bubble inside as my new iPod classic feels content, even proud, to distribute three Oasis songs in a row. I fail to understand the logic here, and while I prefer not to go back to hand-picking tracks out of a library of thousands to avoid taking my frustrations out on a simple and virtually lifeless mechanical device, it would appear that my only option may be to abandon smart playlists altogether and, consequentially, abandon the iPod.

Apple. If you’re out there. I’m begging you. Please address this issue, openly and honestly, for the sake of those who truly believe in your products, their value, and their justified added expense. I know I’m not the only one voicing concern over such a seemingly simple request.

In today’s digital age, the Internet’s near open exchange of information never ceases to amaze, and I feel fortunate to be a member of the generation that stood front and center as the web progressed from infancy into adulthood. As a teenager, I remember feeling stunned the first time a friend messaged me in real time using a desktop computer. Now, we carry the computer in our pocket and rely heavily on the Internet to communicate, conduct business, educate, and entertain. In hind sight, it isn’t shocking to know that entire industries would be forced into an evolutionary state of emergency as they struggled to stay afloat in a rapidly changing environment, and the two we hear about most are music and print.

Both were unequipped and ill-prepared for the mass exodus that occurred after digital technology freed their subjects, and forced a need to update their business plans and models. People who felt used by an industry profiting twofold on the sale of compact discs, which cost pennies to produce, suddenly had the upper hand and simply stopped buying music. Still, all it took was an organized, reasonably priced distribution system built off the convenience of the Internet to revitalize the market, and it was an innovative computer company that put the first foot forward. Meanwhile, the music industry was caught, virtually, with its pants down.

Now, it’s the print industry’s turn to share some of the embarrassment. Sure, publishers made moves years back towards digitizing their business by offering content online, but they clung desperately to the newspaper model and refused to strip off the blinders in anticipation of a time when subscribers would ditch the big front page for a smaller, more personalized screen. Almost ten years out of college, I can recall professors in my own communications courses who predicted a future without traditional media, focusing instead on “the box,” a single-unit device that would contain everything a person could possibly need. So, was it straight denial or simple ignorance that prevented media owners and managers to effectively plan for the big changes that awaited their industry.

What seems most ironic about their lack of preparedness is their density when it comes to understanding how Web 2.0 technology might help sustain their survival. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the media mergers and acquisitions that permeated the industry throughout the last two decades provide the necessary momentum for companies to invest heavily in new technologies and research ways to reach evolving demographics, you know, before it’s too late? Three years ago, Amazon introduced the world to Kindle, a portable reading device with the ability to download published content. That’s right, folks, Amazon. A company that has been in existence almost 15 years stepped up to the plate and met a challenge that major newspaper conglomerates, whose roots could technically classify them as antiques, claimed they didn’t even know existed.

Now, these entities are in trouble and many argue that the fabric of free press is unwinding as they reach to the state for assistance. Industry gatekeepers are quick to shine a light on companies like Google as the source of their problems, an organization whose innovative technologies actually help to direct traffic to their websites and organize advertising into a profitable source of income for online businesses. These dispatches of blame are little more than scapegoats for industry captains who knowingly ignored the coming tide of change, choosing instead to focus on diminished quality to increase profits in the short term. Today, the result is a digital transference of industry, with ideas of promising Web 3.0 technology plowing forward towards an updated press that utilizes interactive social networks, blogs, and online forums to produce and deliver the next generation of news, despite a lack of participation from its traditional counterparts.