text:
Kylie Jarrett
Dr. Kylie Jarrett is Lecturer in Multimedia at the Center for Media Studies at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth.
Home > Volume 13, Number 3 - 3 March 2008 >	Jarrett
Interactivity is Evil! A critical investigation of Web 2.0
Central to Web 2.0 is the requirement for interactive systems to enable the participation of users in production and social interaction. Consequently, in order to critically explore the Web 2.0 phenomenon it is important to explore the relationship of interactivity to social power. This study firstly characterises interactivity in these media using Barry's (2001) framework differentiating interactivity from disciplining technologies as defined by Foucault. Contrary to Barry's model though, the analysis goes on to explore how interactivity may indeed function as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal political economy.
Interaction, participation and agency
Interactivity and discipline
Interactivity and Web 2.0
Interactivity and the neoliberal subject
Interactivity and neoliberal governance
Discipline and seduce
Contingent freedom
The key feature of Web 2.0 is the development of software which enables mass participation in social activities. These activities in turn are extensively popular and, through the network effects of that popularity, economically significant (O'Reilly, 2005; Tweney, 2007; Madden and Fox, 2006). The harnessing of collective intelligence within Web 2.0 demands platforms where this intelligence can be expressed and collected. The social networks at the forefront of this phenomenon (economy) emerge from the ability of users to represent themselves and their interests in mediated spaces and to activate engagement with others via these representations. These features demand a profound capacity for input into and manipulative control over data as a constitutive component of any Web 2.0 site. This 'generative interactivity' (Richards, 2006) and the experience of that as a condition of usage is what arguably differentiates new media from precursor media forms and which is underscored within Web 2.0 systems. Consequently, in order to critically explore this media sector it is important to interrogate the nature of this interactivity and its relationship to the organisation of social power. This is particularly so for the sites associated with Web 2.0 which, in the emerging scholarship about them, have been cast as sites of user power.
This study takes as its basis Andrew Barry's (2001) contention that interactivity is contrary to the exertion of power as manifested through disciplining technologies as described by Foucault (1991). Barry's position implies that interactivity can be distanced from the techniques of power which generate and sustain the political hegemony. However, by interrogating Barry's argument it is possible to interpret interactivity as indeed a disciplining technology, albeit one organised by the dictates of a neoliberal socio–political hegemony. This paper argues that, when contextualised in this way, the nature of the power relations being enacted in Web 2.0 technologies demand careful consideration and the consequences of participation require nuanced exploration.
Key sites of the Web 2.0 phenomenon have been celebrated as locations for the articulation of individual and collective social power by enhancing participation in media production and cultural expression. Research on interactivity has long noted the capacity of a renewed agency in media production to disrupt the knowledge/power nexus (for instance, see Landow, 1992; Lanham, 1993) and the basic power relations of mass broadcast media. As Cover contends "…a digital environment promoting interactivity has fostered a greater capacity and a greater interest by audiences to change, alter and manipulate a text or a textual narrative, to seek co–participation in authorship, and to thus redefine the traditional author–text–audience relationship" [1]. Indeed, as Andrejevic (2004) summarises, the underlying 'promise of the interactive digital revolution' has been presented as the possibility of dis–alienating the consumer from the means of production and re–enchanting the world through the return of embodied participation in media forms. Jenkins (2006a; 2006b), who has been a long advocate of the social significance of consumer participation, uses Levy's idea of collective intelligence to describe the potential significance of consumer participation in media production. This utopian idea posits that the many–to–many communication of the Web can enable "…broader participation in decision–making, new modes of citizenship and community, and the reciprocal exchange of information" [2]. Although he is careful to qualify and complicate the extension of this idea to online communities, Jenkins' orientation is to analyse participatory communities and interactive media in terms of the possibility of social empowerment.
The interpersonal interaction between individuals in Web 2.0 has been specifically valued for its capacity to empower users socially and politically. The study of Michigan State University Facebook users by Ellison et al. (2006) shows a tendency for intensive use of the technology to impact positively on a student's satisfaction with life at the University and individual self–esteem. For teenagers, Web 2.0 social networking sites offer access to and control over public space and, through that, access to and control over the space of power (boyd, 2006a). Involvement in social networking sites has also been identified by boyd and Jenkins (2006) as necessary for cultural capital, and consequently social power, for American teenagers. Bruns (and others) has written extensively on the activation of a new kind of actively productive and critical consumer – the 'produser' – within the blogosphere and the wider field of participatory media (Bruns, 2006; Bruns and Jacobs, 2006). This 'produsage' has been recognised as particularly socially significant when bloggers have taken up the commentary role traditionally held by journalists (Singer, 2006), or where they have critically appraised the work of established news media producers (Bruns, 2005). The 'bottom–up', self–organising of the social networking within information sharing sites such as del.icio.us and Flickr have been described as challenging the power of elite hierarchies to determine and organise knowledge and practice (Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006; Schiltz et al., 2007). These practices have been described as 'a revolution' making the Web more democratic [3] and as having the power to disrupt existing social and economic relations (Pascu et al., 2007). Castells (2007) has identified these collisions between the counter–power associated with the 'mass self–communication' of Web 2.0 technologies and the established power of uni–directional (state/corporate) mass communication as the key site of power struggle in the contemporary world.
But what is different about interactivity in media that enables this expansion of user agency? According to Barry (2001), it is interactivity's distinction from the disciplining techniques of power described by Foucault. Discipline, in Foucauldian theory, is a discursive framework by which activity is organised so that 'the correct training' of individuals occurs (Foucault, 1991). Disciplining techniques are an effect of power relations which work to ensure the alignment of individuals with the goals or aims of the particular formation of power mobilising that strategy. They allow power to be effective without overt external imposition on individuals. Instead disciplining techniques work by producing and reproducing individuals already oriented to the needs of power. A key technique identified by Foucault (1991) is the often discussed technique of surveillance exemplified in Jeremy Bentham's liberal prison design of the Panopticon. In the Panopticon the prisoners were arrayed so that every movement could be viewed and evaluated by an elite guard. The prisoners on the other hand were unable to determine whether, or when, actions were being viewed and thus open to possible punishment or censure. For Foucault, this process of immanent surveillance ensured the internalisation by the prisoner of the particular rules of conduct ordered by the prison's administration. In the fear of exposure and censure, the policing of activity, becomes a self–policing activity. This internal alignment of individual practice with the goals of power constitutes the effective disciplining of that individual.
Interactivity though, Barry contends, is not such a disciplining technology. Discipline, he summarises, unifies the body and the tool into a single apparatus, fixing the relationship between them. He cites Foucault's description of an eighteenth century instruction for handling a rifle in which the soldier and the weapon are brought together in a complex body–object articulation through tight organisation and coordination of movements. By comparison, interactive techniques "... imply a much less rigid articulation of bodies and objects ..." [4]. Interactivity does not cohere around the construction of docile bodies by manipulating them in detail. Instead it is associated with free–forming creativity, intended not to regiment the body, but to "…channel and excite the curiosity of the body and its senses, resulting in anticipated effects on the intellectual productivity, questioning and creativity of those who interact" [5]. Interactivity is not exhaustive, but instantaneous, intensive and specific. And importantly, it does not function by the explicit judgement of an expert authority. "Discipline implies normalisation: the injunction is 'You must!' In contrast, interactivity is associated with the expectation of activity; the injunction is 'You may!'" [6].
Barry [7] establishes a set of ideal/typical contrasts based on the characteristics of discipline described by Foucault [8].
These 'non–disciplinary' features of interactivity can be readily traced within the participatory media of Web 2.0.
Flexible time: In contrast to the regime of broadcasting, participatory media is predominately a 'pull' medium based on persistent databases rather than temporally bound signal distribution. Instead of having content randomly pushed towards them at predetermined times and in predetermined formats, participatory media users have relative control over what and how they engage with a Web 2.0 site. This includes the time of activity both as producer and consumer. The rigid and imposed programming schedules of broadcast television and radio, particularly before the advent of personal recording devices and their capacity to reorganise the consumption behaviours of audiences, have ceded to an extensively flexible temporal arrangement in the 24/7 Web.
Creative capacity: From the addition of a tag to a self–selected, bookmarked Web site in del.icio.us, to uploading a personal photograph to Flickr, to creating a personal profile on MySpace, to producing a fully developed short film for distribution through YouTube, individual creative acts form the primary content of Web 2.0. In fact it would be difficult to imagine participatory media sites without this creative input of consumers. This content is also not necessarily valued for its seamless professionalism, with editing and censorship largely determined by emerging individual or community standards rather than abstract professional codes. The creation of media content is here supplemented with the generative (and thus creative) role of users within the control and policing systems stemming from community interactions (Jarrett, 2006).
Body–object articulation: Importantly, the form of any given user's creative input is not absolutely determined by the site. Although the affordances of particular sites may encourage certain kinds of interaction (see for instance Marlow, et al., (2006) on the contrasts between the tagging systems of Flickr and del.icio.us; Scharmen (2006) on the control of users in MySpace), these are rarely fully determining. The individual texture, content and style of any individual's contribution to their blog, wiki, Flickr image or podcast, although enabled by the interactive functions of the technology, are not entirely structured by those affordances. This leaves space for creative expression.
Furthermore, a fundamental aspect of Web 2.0 sites is to be a platform for the social relationships of their users and the networked intelligence of their input. This networking is never fully determined by the machinic logic of the site's information architecture but occurs, perhaps primarily, in the affective logic relevant to each user or user community. Much of the use of social networking involves the maintenance of pre–existing interpersonal relationships rather than those produced solely by mediated interaction (Ellison et al., 2006; Lange, 2007). As boyd (2006b) reports, the specific textures of social networking systems are defined by the technical infrastructure interacting with wider societal norms. Consequently, there is a less extensive articulation between the site and the body or subjectivity of the user than that described by Foucault. The participatory user is not required to become one with the machine, but is able to use the machine to facilitate a goal determined outside of that relationship.
Intensive use: The social networking facilities of Web 2.0 are based on the premise that there is no exhaustive use of the technology. User profiles, personalisation functions and user histories have been deliberately constructed to help users organise small parts of the broad resources that constitute the contemporary Web. On YouTube for instance all of these functions serve as navigation tools. The folksonomies and tag clouds which emerge from Web 2.0 also help individuals maximise brief interactions with the medium by creating clusters of related information (Marlow, et al., 2006). Acceptance and rejection options in 'friending' functions allow users to organise and direct the flow of traffic to and from sites and to manage engagement with the potentially overwhelming sociality of the site. On Web 2.0 it is never expected that you consume all possible content. The emergent nature of knowledge defined by social interaction denies the fixity that would allow this to be achieved (Schiltz et al., 2007). The goal instead is that you are able to use the technology as desired to maximise each engagement with the site.
Concealment of expertise: My own research into sites such as eBay (Jarrett, 2006), the e–commerce portal ninemsn (Jarrett, 2004) and various Web 2.0 sites (Jarrett, in press) indicates strategic denial of authority by commercial Web producers. For sites such as eBay and YouTube this is important in avoiding litigation related to illegal sales or copyright infringement (Baron, 2002) but it is also a fundamental feature of the brand identities of many contemporary sites (see Cloud, 2006 on YouTube's brand identity). This strategic denial of authority resonates with the apparently free practices of users as they engage with these sites uploading content, selecting information to retrieve or sharing in community norms. On Web 2.0 sites, the authority of the user is allowed (at least the appearance of) full expression while that of the corporate owner is diminished.
Interactivity, and the nature of participatory media, are fundamentally enabling and are clearly associable with the permissive injunction "You may!" Using Barry's taxonomy, the interaction which is enabled by Web 2.0 would appear to be contrary to any kind of disciplining.
However, despite its construction of 'active subjectivities' as opposed to 'docile bodies', it is inaccurate to claim as Barry does that interactivity is not a disciplining technology. Barry's argument appears predicated on reading the nature of discipline through the lens of early liberal governance models dominant in the historical moments from which he and Foucault draw their examples. In these instances the work of power, although liberalised by its enactment through the mobilisation of techniques of the Self rather than corporal (or corporeal) punishment, was to produce citizens inculcated with the relatively structured social orders of the day. However in contemporary neoliberal societies, the ideal citizen is differently configured.
Essentially, neoliberal philosophy is grounded in an underlying belief in "…the self–activating capacities of free human beings, citizens, subjects" [9]. The two mutually informing components of liberal governance are the reduction of direct and overt government intervention and an insistence on the autonomy and choice of the individual (Wright, 2003). The ideal neoliberal subject is thus one who is conceived as being free, both in the sense of having the capacity to choose and in the sense of being without external controlling forces. Within this framework, the ethic of liberal or neoliberal governmentality is that individuals be allowed to govern themselves. In Rose's estimation the governable neoliberal subject is one who is a 'self–steering Self', obliged by the form of neoliberal governance to freely choose their life trajectory and to assume responsibility for that path. This couples with the state's withdrawal from service provision and the installation of a variety of competitive, private or quasi–public organisations as locations for social agency and citizenship. This nexus, Rose argues, reconceptualises the citizen as an 'active agent' choosing between consumer options, creating an imperative of activity as opposed to dependence and passivity.
This description of the neoliberal subject aligns very clearly with the subject being addressed within interactive media. By not rigidly defining the relationship of the user to the technology and by allowing the 'play' of creativity, interactivity refers to an already agential subject: a subject with the a priori power to act. This subject is also freed from a rigid relationship with the dictates of the technology, licensed by the 'you may' exhortation to effect at least the illusion of autonomous agency, making generative choices which steer engagement with the site. The Web 2.0 user thus is represented as both agential and endowed with freedom from externally derived controls. It would seem that the user being addressed in this interactive and participatory media is the ideal, active neoliberal citizen.
It is important to understand though, that interactive media are not merely responsive to a set of pre–existing social practices or phenomena in which neoliberal subjects are found exercising their freedom. Barry himself has argued in a slightly different context that the subject of neoliberalism "…does not have a natural existence. The citizen must be formed morally and technically" [10]. Consequently, the significance of interactive technology cannot be accounted for merely by pointing to active subjects in the real world [11]. Rather, like all discourses, the implementation of this technology has a transformative quality, normalising, producing and reproducing those subjectivities in the act of catering for them. The agency associated with the 'You may!' injunction subjects Web 2.0 consumers to a normative judgement of practice in terms of activity and self–determination central to neoliberal citizenship. This judgement, when (if) inculcated into the subject, becomes the basis of self–policing practice, where a regime of free choice is normalised and individuals become disciplined to accept and exercise their own agency. The Web 2.0 user who accepts the call to interact is being shaped into, or reinforced as, the active, entrepreneurial citizen of neoliberalism.
Palmer (2003) similarly argues that interactivity produces neoliberal subjectivities. He says that the interactive customisation options available in digital media which offer a sense of user control embed individual choice and flexibility in the fabric of the technology. He connects this to recent social and economic changes and the shift to an ethic of individual self–fulfilment and responsibility aligned with neoliberalism. He associates the self–realisation of personalisation technologies with Castells' idea of project identities in which, driven by "…the constant change of roles and situations in a society defined by innovation, flexibility and unpredictability…." [12], people are required to constantly redefine themselves. These flexible personalities he associates with flexible, participatory technologies. But Palmer does not only see the emergence of a prevailing liberal ethos amongst citizens as a cause of the emergence of interactive media, he views it as a constitutive element in the ongoing production of that citizen and a form of social control. He says:
The paradox of user control, in fact, becomes that of the illusion of choice within which the user is offered up for a form of soft domination. Thus not only are discourses of consumer empowerment embedded in a neo–liberal political agenda – embodied by its pillars of individualism, freedom and self–expression – the 'performative subject' produced by most existing forms of participatory real time media is arguably the ideal flexible subject position enabled by contemporary capitalism. [13]
Although approaching the topic from a slightly different perspective Coté and Pybus (2007) also argue that Web 2.0 sites are technologies of hegemonic political and economic systems. Playing with the ideas of Paul Willis, they see sites such as MySpace as locations where young people learn to 'immaterial labour'. Users' continuous development of online subjectivities (or lifestyle brands) within these sites produces value for cultural industries. In the shift from the passive exploitation of the audience commodity to this active exploitation of the creative production of users, Coté and Pybus see the activation of biopower in which mobile and interconnected societies are managed through the creation of subjectivities in service of economic processes. Seemingly contrary to the position outlined here, they argue for a differentiation of disciplinary power and biopower, claiming that disciplinary power "…fixes relations between individuals and institutions" [14] and is thus an individualising technique. Biopower on the other hand activates the whole social body and provides more flexible and less onerous networks of power relations such as those seen on MySpace. However although the power structures may not be disciplinary in societies governed by biopower, the individual techniques of power are still disciplining. The biopower they identify as fundamental to Web 2.0 still involves techniques of discipline, such as interactivity, within its assemblage of practices.
Participatory media can thus be associated with the production of flexible subjectivities, aligned with the needs of the culturally intensive capitalist industries associated with neoliberalism or advanced liberal economies. Interactivity therefore, is a technology which enables the reproduction of neoliberal regimes of power by producing subjects fit for the continuation of that system of power and its particular regimes of control. The interactive Web 2.0 consumer is, therefore, not only the subject of advanced liberal government as previously argued, but is also subject to that particular form of governance.
Thus, contrary to Barry's proposition and the apparent differences between interactivity and discipline, I contend that interactivity is a technical rendering of neoliberal or advanced liberal power and as such a disciplining technology. It is assuredly not a disciplining into regimented control such as that effected upon and with the soldiers of Foucault's account, but it is a disciplining into a liberal ideal of subjectivity based around notions of freedom, choice and activity. This discipline is not about the construction of 'docile bodies', yet it remains true to the spirit through which this is achieved – the normalisation and inculcation of subjection to power. The active, self–governing subjects who are addressed and produced in Web 2.0 are no less a product of discipline than prisoners in the Panopticon or soldiers in their regimented drill practice.
However, there is a little more to the technical functioning of interactivity in Web 2.0. Through its very nature as a technology which works through activating a subject's sense of agency, the technique of interactivity works to mollify resistance. It is more aligned with the seductive exertion of power that Bauman (1992) describes in the consumer complex than the coercive, punitive form attributed to the Panopticon. In its seductive form, power requires no need to blatantly legitimate itself, to justify its own ends. Instead, it integrates society through apparent free choice and affective pleasure [15]. Interactive media's exhortation to be active is a disciplining which works by positive reinforcement. In this context, 'punishment' is constituted by decline in or exclusion from the affective relations or productive capacities of the sites. But taking away the gift of agency or enhanced affect is not commensurate with the negative disciplining of denying that agency in the first place. By functioning through positive seduction rather than negative coercion, the technique of interactivity thus serves as a form of what Barry terms 'permissible control' [16] within the dictates of liberal governance. This permissibility though must be recognised as a strategic instrumentalisation of power. By being exerted as a diffused and defused practice rather than a straightforward and obvious form of governance power denies its own functioning.
As a seductive expression of power, interactivity is based on condescension: a deliberate masking of power in order to effect control. Discussing symbolic power exerted through language, Bourdieu (1991) describes the act of a mayor of the French province of Bearn who, in a speech to assembled Bearnais, chose to speak in the provincial language rather than 'official' French. Bourdieu describes this as a strategy of condescension, which achieves its value for the instigator through a dual motion of negation and simultaneous reinforcement of known power structures.
In order for an audience of people whose mother tongue is Bearnais to perceive as a 'thoughtful gesture' the fact that a Bearnais mayor should speak to them in Bearnais, they must tacitly recognize the unwritten law which prescribes French as the only acceptable language for formal speeches in formal situations. [17]
Condescension becomes possible as a strategy.
... whenever the objective disparity between the persons present (that is, between their social properties) is sufficiently known and recognized by everyone (particularly those involved in the interaction, as agents or spectators) so that the symbolic negation of the hierarchy (by using the 'common touch' for instance) enables the speaker to combine the profits linked to the undiminished hierarchy with those derived from the distinctly symbolic negation of the hierarchy – not the least of which is the strengthening of the hierarchy implied by the recognition accorded to the way of using the hierarchical relation. [18]
By not appearing to be powerful, power continues to be.
What occurs in interactive media in the construction and promotion of a free, active user is this double action. Techniques of power which construct and promote this subject position serve to negate the hierarchy of traditional producer/consumer relations. Yet, this strategy can only function in relation to a producer/consumer power relation which remains recognised and, ultimately, unchanged. Like the Bearnais mayor who can "... create this condescension effect only because ... he also possesses all the titles ... which guarantee his rightful participation in the 'superiority' of the 'superior' language ..." [19], interactive media creates its effect through the sublimated recognition of its determining power. The interactive consumer encounters the negation of a media producer's determining power, but nevertheless remains bound to the sustained recognition of the power relations which retain that producer, and ultimately the hegemonic neoliberal political system, in a position of authority and legitimacy. The interactive user, the disciplined neoliberal citizen, thus encounters their own absence of agency and freedom in the free expression of their generative capacity offered to them within Web 2.0 sites.
It is the veil provided by the seductive, condescending nature of interactive that makes it a difficult system of control to identify and challenge. Barry argues that interactivity is
... both much less and much more than simply a political idea or doctrine. It is much less in so far as interactivity is not, in general, the subject of any political manifesto, nor is it the object of political controversy ... Yet it is political in the sense that is has become a model for the exercise of political power which does not take a disciplinary form. [20]
Although I contend that interactivity is in fact a disciplining exercise of political power, Barry's point remains. The construction of the interactive Web 2.0 user can be conceived as a subtle and politically charged activity. It is an instance of the strategic application of neoliberal power in which control is permissibly enacted through its own negation by the activation of users. Interactivity thus sits within the assemblage of techniques through which regimes of domination are enacted by the prevailing hegemony but one which exists under the radar of political critique.
It certainly overstates the case to claim, as the title of this paper does, that interactivity is 'evil'. This implies that Web 2.0 producers are involved in a sinister plot of global domination and that the disciplining power of interactive media is a deliberate weapon of this dark cabal. This is an absurd premise. It would also be an extremely passive populace that absolutely and unquestioningly accepted any interpellation, even the seductive and appealing subjectivities of participatory media. Foucault's own discursive analysis method demands the immanent existence of resistance as a precondition for the functioning of any discourse. And finally, the title utilises a naïve technological determinism and ignores the convergence of social and cultural trends which constitute the interactive media environment [21]. The hyperbole of this title though is used as a rhetorical tool to draw attention to the need to continually interrogate the fabric of digital media within the particular socio–historical moment of its emergence and use. The understandable reflex to align the renewed productive activity of users with a substantive expression of counter power must be resisted in the context of the seductive governance system that is neoliberalism.
In Madness and Civilization (2001), Foucault describes the work of the eighteenth century philanthropist Samuel Tuke (1784–1857) in 'freeing the madman' from the chains and squalor of the penal institutions where the mentally ill resided. Tuke's liberal approach involved viewing 'mad' behaviour and its control as a matter of individual moral responsibility rather than an act of criminality. In doing so, Tuke internalised madness within the person of the insane. Madness thus became inextricably linked to the relationship of individual to Self. Foucault argues that in this construction of freedom, Tuke "… substituted for the free terror of madness the stifling anguish of responsibility" [22]. As Deleuze summarises, what is significant about Foucault's interpretation is that in this passage he "…analysed the discourse of the 'philanthropist' who freed madmen from their chains, without concealing the more effective set of chains to which he destined them" [23]. Interactivity can be construed as offering a similar contingent freedom, complete with an effective set of chains binding people to the neoliberal hegemony. As Internet researchers we must remain always conscious of these chains and, like Foucault, work constantly to reveal them.
E–mail: kylie [dot] jarrett [at] nuim [dot] ie
A special thank you to all at the Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0 session at the AoIR 8.0 conference for their stimulating insights, but especially Michael Zimmer for his energy in proposing and organising the panel, and his hard work in preparing this special issue.
1. Cover, 2006, p. 140.
2. Jenkins, 2006a, p. 136.
3. Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006, p. 205.
4. Barry, 2001, p. 148.
7. Barry, 2001, pp. 149–150.
8. Foucault, 1991, pp. 149–156.
9. Rose, 1999, p. 64.
10. Barry, 2001, p. 48.
11. Barry, 2001, p. 86; Simons, 2002.
12. Palmer, 2003, p. 161.
13. Palmer, 2003, p. 161, original emphasis.
14. Coté and Pybus, 2007, p. 92.
15. Bauman, 1992, pp. 97–101; Rose 1999.
16. Barry, 2001, p. 148.
17. Bourdieu, 1991, p. 68.
18. Ibid.
21. Jenkins, 2006a, pp. 135–136.
22. Foucault, 2001, p. 234.
23. Deleuze, 1999, p. 54.
M. Andrejevic, 2004. Reality TV: The work of being watched. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
D.P. Baron, 2002. "Private ordering on the Internet: The eBay community of traders," Business and Politics, volume 4, number 3, pp. 245–274.http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1041
A. Barry, 2001. Political machines: Governing a technological society. London: Athlone Press,
Z. Bauman, 1992. Intimations of postmodernity. London: Routledge.
P. Bourdieu, 1991. Language and symbolic power. Translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.
d. boyd, 2006a. "Identity production in a networked culture: Why youth heart MySpace," American Association for the Advancement of Science, St. Louis (19 February), at http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html, accessed 23 January 2008.
d. boyd, 2006b. "Friends, Friendster and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites," First Monday, volume 11, number 12 (December), at http://journals.uic.edu/fm/article/view/1418/1336, accessed 17 January 2007.
d. boyd and H. Jenkins, 2006. "MySpace and Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA)," MIT Tech Talk (26 May), at http://www.danah.org/papers/MySpaceDOPA.html, accessed 17 June 2007.
A. Bruns, 2006. "Towards produsage: Futures for user–led content production," In: F. Sudweeks, H. Hrachovec, and C. Ess (editors). Cultural attitudes towards communication and technology 2006: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication, Tartu, Estonia, 28 June–1 July, 2006. Perth: School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, pp. 275–284.
A. Bruns, 2005. Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. New York: Peter Lang.
A. Bruns and J. Jacobs (editors), 2006. Uses of blogs. New York: Peter Lang.
M. Castells, 2007. "Communication, power and counter–power in the Network Society," International Journal of Communication, volume 1, pp. 238–266.
J. Cloud, 2006. "The gurus of YouTube", Time (25 December), pp. 66–74.
M. Coté and J. Pybus, 2007. "Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: MySpace and social networks," ephemera, volume 7, number 1, pp. 88–106.
R. Cover, 2006. "Audience inter/active: Interactive media, narrative control and reconceiving audience history," New Media & Society, volume 8, number 1, pp. 139–158.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444806059922
G. Deleuze, 1999. Foucault. Translated and edited by S. Hand. London: Continuum.
N. Ellison, C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe, 2006. "Spatially bounded online social networks and social capital: The Role of Facebook," paper presented at International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany (19–23 June), at http://www.msu.edu/~nellison/Facebook_ICA_2006.pdf, accessed 23 January 2008.
M. Foucault, 1991. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Translated by A. Sheridan. London: Penguin.
M. Foucault, 2001. Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the Age of Reason. Translated by R. Howard. London: Routledge.
K. Jarrett, in press. "Through an interface, darkly: Consumer agency on the commercial Web," In: J. Ruggill, K. McAllister and J.R. Chaney (editors). The computer cultures reader. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
K. Jarrett, 2006. "The perfect community: Disciplining the eBay user," In: K. Hillis, M. Petit and N.S. Epley (editors). Everyday eBay: Culture, collecting, and desire. New York: Routledge, pp. 107–121.
K. Jarrett, 2004. "Windows shopping™: Deconstructing the empowered e–commerce consumer," unpublished doctoral thesis, University of South Australia.
H. Jenkins, 2006a. Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York: New York University Press.
H. Jenkins, 2006b. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
J. Kolbitsch and H. Maurer, 2006. "The transformation of the Web: How emerging communities shape the information we consume," Journal of Universal Computer Science, volume 12, number 2, pp. 187–213.
G.P. Landow, 1992. Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
P.G. Lange, 2007. "Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube," Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication, volume 13, number 1, at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html, accessed 14 November 2007.
R.A. Lanham, 1993. The electronic word: Democracy, technology and the arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
M. Madden and S. Fox, 2006. "Riding the waves of 'Web 2.0': More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined," Pew Internet and American Life Project, at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf, accessed 21 October 2007.
C. Marlow, M, Naaman, d. boyd and M. Davis, 2006. "HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to tead", paper presented at HT'06, Seventeenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Odense, Denmark (22–25 August), at http://www.danah.org/papers/Hypertext2006.pdf, accessed 21 October 2007.
T. O'Reilly, 2005. "What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software," O'Reilly Media, at http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1, accessed 9 February 2007.
D. Palmer, 2003. "The paradox of user control," paper presented at the Fifth International Digital Arts and Culture Conference, Melbourne, Australia (19–23 May), at http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Palmer.pdf, accessed 31 May 2003.
C. Pascu, D. Osimo, M. Ulbrich, G. Turlea and J.C. Burgelman, 2007. "The potential disruptive impact of Internet 2 based technologies," First Monday, volume 12, number 3 (March), at http://journals.uic.edu/fm/article/view/1630/1545, accessed 21 October 2007.
R. Richards, 2006. "Users, interactivity and generation," New Media & Society, volume 8, number 4, pp. 531–550.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444806064485
N.S. Rose, 1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
F. Scharmen, 2006. "'You must be logged in to do that!' MySpace and control," at http://www.sevensixfive.net/myspace/myspacetwopointoh.html, accessed 9 February, 2007.
M. Schiltz, F. Truyen and H. Coppens, 2007. "Cutting the trees of knowledge: Social software, information architecture and their epistemic consequences," Thesis Eleven, number 89, May, pp. 94–114.
J. Simons, 2002. "Aesthetic political technologies," Intertexts, volume 6, number 1 (Spring), pp. 74–97.
J.B. Singer, 2006. "Journalists and news bloggers: Complements, contradictions and challenges," In: A. Bruns and J. Jacobs (editors). Uses of blogs. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 23–32.
D. Tweney, 2007. "Tim O'Reilly: Web 2.0 is all about controlling data," Wired (13 April), at http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/04/timoreilly_0413, accessed 24 April 2007.
J. Wright, 2003. The ethics of economic rationalism. Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.
Copyright © 2008, First Monday.
Copyright © 2008, Kylie Jarrett.
by Kylie Jarrett
First Monday, Volume 13, Number 3 - 3 March 2008


text:
Home Canada Coronavirus Canada Updates: Nunavut reports first coronavirus deaths
Coronavirus Canada Updates: Nunavut reports first coronavirus deaths
Nunavut has reported the territory's first two coronavirus deaths, the premier confirmed in a press release on Sunday.
"This is a very sad day. On behalf of the Government of Nunavut, we send our thoughts and condolences to the family, communities of Arviat and Rankin Inlet and all Nunavummiut during this difficult time," said Nunavut Premier Joe Savikataaq.
"We ask Nunavummiut to stay strong and remain vigilant to limit the spread of the virus."
Savikataaq explained that the first resident, from Arviat — a primarily Inuit hamlet on the western shore of Hudson's Bay — was transported south by medivac after he developed complications related to the virus. He died in hospital late Saturday afternoon.
The second death was a Rankin Inlet resident who had contracted the virus in southern Canada. Savikataaq explained that this individual also developed complications from the virus and passed away late Saturday.
"Out of respect for both individuals and their families, we will not be releasing additional information," Savikataaq said.
Until recently, the northern territory had managed to avoid the spread of the virus that has killed thousands around the globe — drawing international attention from news organizations like the BBC that marvelled at the territory's ability to dodge the illness.
It wasn't until Nov. 6 that Nunavut reported its first confirmed COVID-19 case. From there, the virus began to worm its way into communities around the territory. As of Dec. 18, 259 cases had been reported among the territory's 38,780 residents.
There are currently 34 active cases in the region, according to the Nunavut government, which most recently reported its case count on Friday.
Previous articleCoronavirus Canada Updates: 1 COVID-19 case in New Brunswick tied to cases at Maine paper mill
Next articleMaersk Warns of Africa Piracy Risk After Cargo Ship Attacked, Report
Coronavirus Canada updates: New auditor general says office narrowing focus on federal COVID-19 programs
Coronavirus: Canada surpasses 1,000 deaths with Quebec's latest update
Former teammate set to take stand at St. Mike's sex assault trial, Report
Trump's former Atlantic City casino imploded in seconds (Video)
Coronavirus Canada Updates: Jewish General Hospital set to impose tighter COVID-19 restrictions
Canada's inflation rate rises to highest level in a decade, at...
Missing Thornhill senior found safe: Police
Coronavirus Canada updates: Ontario's Ministry of Health reports 14 new outbreaks...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, Hero And Villain To Gay Rights Movement, Dies at 83
December 27, 2015 by John Wright Leave a Comment
Robert Spitzer may not be a household name in the modern-day gay-rights movement, but he arguably played as big a role as anyone in the advancement of LGBT equality.
Dr. Spitzer, the renowned psychiatrist who died Friday at 83, was the driving force behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 vote to stop treating homosexuality as an illness — or a "sociopathic personality disturbance."
"The fact that gay marriage is allowed today is in part owed to Bob Spitzer," gay psychoanalyst Dr. Jack Drescher told The New York Times.
Spitzer's impact is hardly confined to gay rights, as he's considered the most influential psychiatrist of his time.
Following the 1973 vote, Spitzer took over the APA's bible — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Under him, the DSM tripled in size as he branded and defined scores of common mental illnesses, including PTSD and bipolar disorder, forever changing their treatment.
But nearly 30 years after the 1973 vote, Spitzer's legacy would be severely tarnished by a 2003 study he authored championing "ex-gay therapy," which he later retracted.
According to his obituary in The Washington Post, Spitzer's career began in earnest when a colleague at Columbia University asked him to serve on a committee overseeing the DSM in 1966:
His initial role was modest, but it gave him a front-row seat to the debates roiling his profession. After the 1969 Stonewall riots, gay activists were energized to agitate for more rights, and in the early 1970s, they noisily invaded APA conferences to protest homosexuality's classification as a mental illness.
After a clash at a 1972 meeting of behavioral therapists in New York, Dr. Spitzer decided to hear the protesters out. Personally, he believed then that homosexuality was an illness, he later told public radio's "This American Life." But forever the devil's advocate, he organized a panel for both sides to air their arguments at the 1973 APA conference in Honolulu.
There, an activist brought Dr. Spitzer to a secret tiki-bar gathering of closeted gay psychiatrists. Many had prestigious credentials, which convinced Dr. Spitzer that homosexuality was not some crippling condition.
Ultimately, Dr. Spitzer's was the loudest voice arguing to drop homosexuality from the DSM. When old-guard psychiatrists pushed back, Dr. Spitzer appealed with logic.
"A medical disorder," he explained to The Washington Post at the time, "either had to be associated with subjective distress — pain — or general impairment in social function." If gays were happy being gay, then where was the disorder?"
Thirty years after the historic 1973 vote, Spitzer conducted a study in which he interviewed 200 people who'd undergone "ex-gay" therapy.
"The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year," Spitzer concluded.
Spitzer's study came under intense fire from his peers and from LGBT advocates, who pointed out that it relied on distant memories and involved "ex-gay" activists who'd undergone a wide variety of therapies. However, much to Spitzer's dismay, the study was celebrated by the "ex-gay" movement and would go on to be frequently cited by opponents of gay rights.
Finally, in 2012, Spitzer penned an apology in the same journal in which the study had originally been published.
"I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy," Spitzer wrote. "I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some 'highly motivated' individuals."
We forgive you, doctor. Rest in peace.
Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: "Ex-Gays", American Psychiatric Association, Colorado LGBT Rights, Deaths, Gay Rights, homosexuality, Jack Drescher, Robert Spitzer
Previous Post: « Weekend News Brief: Jake Shears, Superheroes, Neil Patrick Harris, Italy, Bill Clinton, Shark
Next Post: 'Straight James / Gay James' Looks at Both Sides of James Franco, Through Poetry »


text:
TeachableMoment
Election Troubles: Gerrymandering, DREs & the Money Chase
Alan Shapiro
The 2006 mid-term elections present an excellent opportunity to examine some major issues related to voting in the U.S. Three students readings are followed by suggestions for further student inquiry, reform proposals, and possible citizenship activities.
To the Teacher:
The 2006 mid-term elections present an excellent opportunity to examine some major issues related to voting in the U.S.: gerrymandered Congressional districts; problematic voting machines, especially those providing direct recording electronic (DRE) voting; efforts to prevent voters from exercising their franchise; and the escalating costs of running a political campaign and their impact on public policy.
Three readings lay out the basics of each issue. Following the readings are suggestions for further student inquiry, reform proposals, and possible citizenship activities.
Student Reading 1:
Troubles with the House
"Although our constitution framers gave the House of Representatives extraordinary powers and, of all the branches of government, the clearest accountability to the American people, that accountability has been destroyed beyond all recognition."
—Fair Voting and Democratic Research Center (www.fairvote.org)
On November 7, 2006, Americans will go to the polls to elect or reelect all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives for a two-year term. Based on recent political history, the odds are that a great majority of those running for another term will be reelected. How do we know this?
In four House elections since 1996 more than 98% of the incumbents have won, most by margins of 10% or more.
In 2002, 81 incumbents were unopposed by a major party candidate.
In 2004 only five incumbents lost and 90% of the incumbents won by landslides of at least 20%. In California all 53 incumbents won.
Partisan political control of the House of Representatives has changed just once in the past 26 elections.
"There are now about 400 safe seats in Congress," wrote Richard Pildes, a law professor at New York University. "The level of competitiveness has plummeted to the point where it is hard to describe the House as involving competitive elections at all these days." (Jeffrey Toobin, "The Great Election Grab," New Yorker, 12/8/03)
1. Gerrymandering
Members of the House of Representatives are elected from congressional districts that are regularly gerrymandered. The term gerrymander was coined from the last name of Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1811 he approved the boundaries for a congressional district that, to mock him, someone said resembled a salamander. Salamander soon became gerrymander.
Following a census every 10 years, the U.S. constitution requires that the number of representatives allotted to each state be reapportioned up or down depending upon its population. Representatives lost by one state are gained by another. As a result, new congressional district lines become necessary. Drawing them is usually the job of the state legislature and the governor. The political party with a majority is likely to map them to increase its power. They often draw the lines so that the maximum number of districts will include a majority of voters supporting their party. The results: odd-shaped or gerrymandered districts.
Following the 2000 census, Texas redistricted. But after victories in the 2002 congressional elections, the Republican legislative majority set aside the tradition of redistricting once every ten years. In 2003 it mapped new lines favorable to the party. This redistricting produced six more Republican members for the House in the 2004 congressional elections.
Following a legal challenge, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that the Texas legislature acted "with the sole purpose of achieving a Republican congressional majority." But in a 5-3 decision the Court said the case did not offer a "workable test" for deciding "how much partisan dominance is too much." In short, partisan gerrymandering is okay up to a point. But the Supreme Court has yet to say what that point is.
The Court also ruled, though, that the Texas legislature violated the Voting Rights Act in drawing boundaries for one southwestern district. It had removed 100,000 Mexican-Americans and replaced them with Anglo voters to give a Republican a better chance of winning his reelection. The Voting Rights Act guarantees minorities the right to "participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." The Court ruling means that the Texas legislature must redraw the lines for this district, an action that will inevitably affect to some degree one or more other districts.
Gerrymandering is even more powerful today than in the past because legislators now have computerized information at their fingertips and methods for producing scientifically the desired partisan results.
"The self-dealing quality of legislators drawing districts for themselves or for their partisans has basically collapsed the enterprise," said Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University and an expert on redistricting. "There's an increasing sense of revulsion among people at this self-dealing. It is somewhat scandalous that there are no competitive elections anymore." (New York Times, 2/7/05)
2. Voting Rules that Favor Major Parties
Voting rules favor the election of candidates from either the Republican or the Democratic party. It is a winner-take-all system that enables the person with a plurality of the votes to win the seat.
Imagine a district in which there are four candidates for a House seat. The Republican wins 22,000 votes; the Democrat wins 20,000; a third-party candidate receives 14,000 and another third-party candidate wins 10,000. No candidate has a majority of the votes, but the Republican wins by a plurality even though 44,000 voters cast their ballots for other candidates, and even though more people voted for third-party candidates than for the winning Republican.
3. The Advantages of the Incumbent
The incumbent almost always has a big advantage over challengers.
Typically, the incumbent begins the process in a far better position. The district in most cases has a history of supporting the incumbent's party. And the incumbent may have been able to shore up that support by getting the district gerrymandered.
While in office, the incumbent can solve problems or do favors for constituents, while opposing candidates cannotóhence garnering even more support for the incumbent. This can have a corrupting effect, such as when an incumbent backs a measure to favor a rich supporter even though it is not in the best interests of the average voter.
Through what is known as the "franking privilege," an incumbent pays nothing to flood a district with supportive leaflets and brochures, something opposing candidates have to pay for. The incumbent is likely to be much more able than an opponent to raise campaign cash because he or she is in a position to support what the biggest givers want.
A very important result of diminished competitiveness in congressional elections is that primary elections, in which members of the same party compete to determine who will be the party's general election candidate, can become more important than the general election. (This is especially true in districts that historically vote strongly for one party or another and in districts that have been gerrymandered.)
"Members of the House now effectively answer only to primary voters who represent the partisan edge of both parties. As a result, collaboration and compromise between the parties have almost disappeared." (Toobin, 12/8/03)
1. What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?
2. How do you explain the opening quote? Why does the House have "the clearest accountability to the American people"? How has that accountability been "destroyed beyond all recognition"?
3. What is a gerrymandered district? What difference to voters does gerrymandering make? Why is gerrymandering easier to accomplish today than it was in the past?
4. How does the Supreme Court view gerrymandering?
5. How can a candidate win with less than a majority of the votes? Define plurality. What is a "winner-take-all" voting system? In the general election of 2004, did your representative win by a plurality or a majority?
6. What is an incumbent? What advantages does an incumbent have over a challenger?
7. What is a primary election? Is there to be or has there been such an election in your district? Who are the most likely voters in a primary? Why?
8. What is the "franking privilege"?
For further inquiry
1. Get a map showing your congressional district and find out how this map was prepared, by whom and when.
2. Is yours a "safe" congressional district (for the incumbent)? What makes it "safe," or, perhaps, "unsafe"? For how long has your representative in the House served?
3. How much money did your representative raise for the 2004 congressional campaign? Where did the money come from? (See, especially, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics,www.opensecrets.org, which is nonpartisan and reports on a range of campaign finance issues.)
4. How might the current system of mapping district lines be reformed? By a nonpartisan commission? As Fair Vote, a nonpartisan organization, argues, creating new district lines raises a number of issues and is more complicated than it appears to be. See its Voting and Democracy Research Center at www.fairvote.org for a detailed discussion. Included is "Redistricting Roulette," which gives the reader an opportunity to try his or her hand at creating fair congressional district boundaries.
Troubles at the Polls
Americans won't soon forget the 2000 presidential election, when disastrous voting problems in Florida resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that made George W. Bush president. Florida's punch-card voting at many of its polling places and "hanging chads," bits of cardboard that didn't necessarily fall away when punched, led to uncertainties about a voter's intentions and became a national joke.
In 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to prevent another fiasco and to promote computerized voting, called "direct recording electronic" (DRE) voting. But DRE voting machines have led to another controversy. The non-partisan Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report in September 2005 after many complaints about the "security and reliability" of DRE voting. It cited studies that found that "it was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidateÖand [that] vendors installed uncertified versions of voting software." The GAO report concluded that the result was a "loss and miscount of votes" in the 2004 election (www.gao.gov)
Since the GAO report, examples of DRE problems have multiplied. In a March 2006 Chicago primary election voters used "touch-screen" and "optical scan" systems manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems. Technical problems and human errors resulted in a week-long delay before officials could tally all the votes (New York Times, 5/12/06).
Early in May, Harri Hursti, a security expert, analyzed Diebold electronic voting machines for Black Box Voting, Inc., a nonprofit group that has been critical of electronic voting. He found serious voting-machine flaws. Steven Levy, commenting on his report, wrote, "It requires only a few minutes of pre-election access to a Diebold machine to open that machine and insert a PC card that, if it contained malicious code, could reprogram the machine to give control to the violator. Worse, it's even possible for such ballot-tampering software to trick authorized technicians into thinking that everything is working fine, an illusion you couldn't pull off with pre-electronic systems." (Newsweek, 5/29/06)
According to Common Cause, 17 states, including the District of Columbia, "are at 'high' risk of having election results compromised due to problems with voting machines known as DREs." Another 23 states are at "mid-level risk" and 11 are at "low risk." (www.commoncause.org)
But punch cards, DREs, and other faulty voting equipment have not been the only troubles at America's polls. Others keep millions of Americans from voting or from having their votes counted if they did vote. The problems include:
Having partisan officials responsible for overseeing the counting of votes
Purging eligible voters from the lists of registered voters
Neglecting to process voter registration cards
Rejecting voter registration applications for minor technical faults
Failing to provide provisional ballots to voters who appear at the polls to vote but
whose status is challenged
Forcing voters to wait on long lines for hours because officials have not provided enough voting machines or have reduced the number of polling places
Intimidating potential voters
Rigging recounts of votes
For more information on these problems, see "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio," a report released by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on an investigation into thousands of complaints by Ohio voters after the 2004 election (available atwww.house.gov/judiciary-democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf). Also see Andrew Gumbel's "The Coming Ballot Meltdown: Ohio Could Be the Place Again," The Nation, July 17/24, 2006.
2. What are the benefits and possible dangers of DREs?
3. Consider each of the methods named in the reading that might keep someone from voting. Is each one clear to you? Have there been any such problems in the students' district?
1. What were the "multiple problems" in Florida during the 2000 presidential election?
2. What are additional problems with DREs and how might they be corrected? See, for example, the following websites of nonpartisan organizations: the Verified Voting Foundation,www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org, and Common Cause, www.commoncause.org.
3. What is the voting method in the students' district? Have there been any problems with it? If so, how have they been dealt with?
4. Ask students to prepare a questionnaire on issues and problems regarding voting in their district, then find out who oversees the election process there. Arrange, if possible, interviews with such people and ask students to make reports on the results.
Troubles over Money
You've decided to become a candidate for the House of Representatives or the Senate. Or perhaps you are an incumbent and want to run for reelection. You know that running is going to cost you money. But for what? And how much? Here are some of the items:
A campaign manager and other campaign employees
Printing and mailings
A telephone bank with hired operators to make many calls
A campaign office with necessary furniture, computers, phones, etc.
You talk to consultants and political friends to find out what these and other costs are likely to be. You check the nonpartisan website of the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) and find out that in 2004:
the average House incumbent raised $1,122,505.
the average House challenger raised $192,964.
the average Senate incumbent raised $8,614,011.
the average Senate challenger raised $962,074.
A quick glance at these numbers tells you several things. 1) An incumbent is very likely to raise far more money than a challenger. 2) Running for the House is expensive. 3) Running for the Senate is even more expensive.
So where are you going to get the money you need?
Possibilities include: the political party whose nomination you hope to get; political action committees (PACs) that represent businesses or labor unions; so-called 527 groups (named because they are organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code) that can't contribute directly to you but can spend money to mobilize voters and advocate on issues you support; lobbyists who work in Washington D.C., perhaps for a big corporation like Boeing, perhaps for a labor union like the American Federation of Teachers, perhaps for an organization like the National Rifle Association; and individual contributions.
For the 2004 elections, the top donor to candidates was Goldman Sachs, a global investment banking and securities firm, which gave $6,511,573. Second was the National Association of Realtors at $3,853,027. Third was Microsoft at $3,549,015.
Why should individuals support you with contributions? Perhaps because your stand on certain issues appeals to them or you seem honest or speak well. But why should PACs, 527 groups, lobbyists and the companies they work for support you? Certainly because they want you to do something for them. They think a hefty contribution will get you to listen carefully as they explain what that something is. Or maybe you're already a member of the House or the Senate, perhaps on an important committee whose work directly affects those from whom you hope to get money. They want your ear, your support, your vote. PACs give almost all their money to incumbents.
Running for public office at the federal or even the state level these days costs a great deal of money. So much money that, not surprisingly, corruption results. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican in the House from 1991-2005, was a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He pleaded guilty recently to, among other things, taking $2.4 million in bribes from three defense contractors to influence the awarding of lucrative defense work. He is now in prison.
A less obvious form of "legal" corruption is what has become known as the K Street strategy. It is named for the Washington, D.C., street lined with offices for major industry trade associations and lobbying firms. In 2004, spending on federal lobbying of Congress and federal agencies was $2.1 billion. In 2005, 34,785 lobbyists worked in the nation's capital. Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader in the House from 2003-2006, made it clear to lobbying firms that there were two rules for influencing legislation good for their clients: 1) Hire Republicans only and 2) Contribute handsomely to Republican political campaigns.
The 1976 Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that direct limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The court reaffirmed that ruling recently in Randall v. Sorrell.
As a candidate for the House or Senateówhether you are an incumbent or a challengeróyou know you will have to raise money. People and groups that give money, especially large sums of money, almost always want something in return. So what will you be prepared to give? And what will be the cost to you?
2. Why is running for federal office so expensive?
3. What are potential sources of money for a candidate?
4. Why are donors more likely to give to an incumbent than to a challenger?
5. What effect is this likely to have on the political process? On you, as a candidate?
6. Why does the Supreme Court regard direct limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending as a violation of the First Amendment?
1. Research the House member in your district and the two senators in your state. An excellent source of information is the Center for Responsive Politics (www.crp.org). It does not support candidates. It does not take positions on major public issues like the Iraq war or immigration. It provides objective reports on money in politics.
At this site you can find the most up-to-date information on the political financing of your representative or senators. It includes:
Major donorsóindividuals, companies, labor unions, other groups and organizations
Receipts up to the date of their last required report
Total money spent
Quality of their financial disclosure (as judged by the Center)
For comparative purposes it might be worthwhile also to check out the same kind of information for another representative or two and the senators from nearby states.
Take notes on your findings. Come to class with those notes and any questions they raise for you. Have a class discussion about the facts of political financing and their implications for the democratic process.
2. Campaign finance reform efforts that aim to level the playing field among candidates and reduce or eliminate the corrupting influence of money in U.S. elections have had limited success. Common Cause (www.commoncause.org) is promoting a program of public financing of political campaigns. Such financing has had some recent success, for example in Connecticut state elections. How would public financing work? What are the pros and cons?
For additional information about campaign finance reform, see also the websites of Public Citizen (www.citizen.org) ; Public Campaign (www.publiccampaign.org); Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org); U.S. Action (www.usaction.org) and its affiliates, such as Citizens Action in New York (www.citizenactionny.org); and Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu).
3. What was the Supreme Court's reasoning in its 1976 decision on Buckley v. Valeo? Another campaign finance reform effort was Vermont's more recent enactment of limits on campaign contributions and spending. The Supreme Court decision in Randall v. Sorrell struck down the Vermont law. Why? What room did the decision leave for a possible future case on campaign finance limitations?
For citizenship
Following study of their congressional district lines, voting methods, and campaign financing, what conclusions do students draw about each? Is there a consensus that reforms are necessary in one or more areas? If so, what reforms and what might students do about them? Among the possibilities:
Students might interview election officials in their districts. Students should carefully prepare for such interviews by developing concise, clear, and carefully worded questions that get at issues like those in the first two readings.
Students might send e-mails or letters about these issues to their representative and senatorsóor visit their officers. Students can also monitor what, if anything, their representatives do about the issue.
Students might prepare and distribute class newspapers or magazines dealing with key issues or organize assemblies that include public officials and student participation.
Students can get involved in campaigns for improved voting methods by such organizations as Common Cause, Public Citizen and The Center for Responsive Politics.
This essay was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org.
Teresa Ann Willis
Partisan Redistricting: How Do I Make My Vote Count?
Students engage in inquiry to uncover the history of redistricting and gerrymandering and discuss the provisions of H.R.1, which proposes an end to partisan redistricting.
Election Reform
Can the Problem of Gerrymandering Be Ended?
Students learn what gerrymandering is and why it poses a problem for U.S. democracy, and consider recent attempts to combat the practice.
Dog-Whistle Politics: Talking About Race Without Talking About Race
Students consider the history of "dog-whistle" politics and whether the current campaign season marks a break from the past practice by making racial references overt.


text:
// Generated from /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_144.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/lib/rt.jar

#pragma once

#include <fwd-POI.hpp>
#include <java/io/fwd-POI.hpp>
#include <java/lang/fwd-POI.hpp>
#include <java/util/fwd-POI.hpp>
#include <java/util/AbstractMap.hpp>
#include <java/io/Serializable.hpp>
#include <java/lang/Cloneable.hpp>

template<typename ComponentType, typename... Bases> struct SubArray;
namespace java
{
    namespace io
    {
typedef ::SubArray< ::java::io::Serializable, ::java::lang::ObjectArray > SerializableArray;
    } // io

    namespace lang
    {
typedef ::SubArray< ::java::lang::Comparable, ObjectArray > ComparableArray;
typedef ::SubArray< ::java::lang::Enum, ObjectArray, ComparableArray, ::java::io::SerializableArray > EnumArray;
    } // lang
} // java

struct default_init_tag;

class java::util::EnumMap
    : public AbstractMap
    , public virtual ::java::io::Serializable
    , public virtual ::java::lang::Cloneable
{

public:
    typedef AbstractMap super;

private:
    static ::java::lang::Object* NULL__;
    static ::java::lang::EnumArray* ZERO_LENGTH_ENUM_ARRAY_;
    Set* entrySet_ {  };
    ::java::lang::Class* keyType {  };
    ::java::lang::EnumArray* keyUniverse {  };
    static constexpr int64_t serialVersionUID { int64_t(458661240069192865LL) };
    int32_t size_ {  };
    ::java::lang::ObjectArray* vals {  };

protected:
    void ctor(::java::lang::Class* keyType);
    void ctor(EnumMap* m);
    void ctor(Map* m);

public:
    void clear() override;
    EnumMap* clone() override;
    bool containsKey(::java::lang::Object* key) override;
    /*bool containsMapping(::java::lang::Object* key, ::java::lang::Object* value); (private) */
    bool containsValue(::java::lang::Object* value) override;
    /*int32_t entryHashCode(int32_t index); (private) */
    Set* entrySet() override;
    bool equals(::java::lang::Object* o) override;
    /*bool equals(EnumMap* em); (private) */
    ::java::lang::Object* get(::java::lang::Object* key) override;
    /*static ::java::lang::EnumArray* getKeyUniverse(::java::lang::Class* keyType); (private) */
    int32_t hashCode() override;
    /*bool isValidKey(::java::lang::Object* key); (private) */
    Set* keySet() override;
    /*::java::lang::Object* maskNull(::java::lang::Object* value); (private) */
    virtual ::java::lang::Object* put(::java::lang::Enum* key, ::java::lang::Object* value);
    void putAll(Map* m) override;
    /*void readObject(::java::io::ObjectInputStream* s); (private) */
    ::java::lang::Object* remove(::java::lang::Object* key) override;
    /*bool removeMapping(::java::lang::Object* key, ::java::lang::Object* value); (private) */
    int32_t size() override;
    /*void typeCheck(::java::lang::Enum* key); (private) */
    /*::java::lang::Object* unmaskNull(::java::lang::Object* value); (private) */
    Collection* values() override;
    /*void writeObject(::java::io::ObjectOutputStream* s); (private) */

    // Generated
    EnumMap(::java::lang::Class* keyType);
    EnumMap(EnumMap* m);
    EnumMap(Map* m);
protected:
    EnumMap(const ::default_init_tag&);

public:
    static ::java::lang::Class *class_();
    ::java::lang::Object* put(::java::lang::Object* key, ::java::lang::Object* value) override;
    virtual bool remove(::java::lang::Object* key, ::java::lang::Object* value);

private:
    static ::java::lang::Object*& NULL_();
    static ::java::lang::EnumArray*& ZERO_LENGTH_ENUM_ARRAY();
    virtual ::java::lang::Class* getClass0();
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Schooling Gates
Chris Costello
Arrogate dominates the first ever Pegasus at Gulfstream Park
On a beautiful, sunny, crisp day in Miami, Florida in January, I woke up and I walked out onto my balcony to stare at the ocean and realized I would get to see horse racing history made, no matter what, on Saturday, January 28th. I hoped as everyone else did to see California Chrome and Arrogate chase each other down the stretch after the final turn; but, sometimes what we hope for can't always become reality. The track midday at Gulfstream Park seemed pretty quiet. You could actually walk around and enjoy the many amenities; but, as the Pegasus post time approached, that all changed. It got really tense and a lot louder. The crowd at Gulfstream Park which earlier looked like a regular weekend crowd, now looked more like a Florida Derby crowd, even bigger. Between the track entrance and the paddock area California Chrome and Arrogate circled each other like two prize fighters, staring each other down before a championship fight. It was amazing to witness. As the horses made their way onto the track, my Dad and I joined the gate crew as they set the gate for the start. As much as I wanted to see a great race and history made, at the end of the day, I just wanted a safe trip for everyone. When that happens you are able to leave the track with a smile on your face. As the horses approached the gate, California Chrome hesitated a bit going in which he never does. I didn't think much of it at the time, but after the fact, the outcome of the race makes sense. California Chrome and Victor Espinoza already had a lot of work to do, starting from the twelfth position. I knew Victor wasn't going to ride him like he did in the Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita when he lost to Arrogate. One thing I've learned is most jockeys bounce back after a bad ride. On Pegasus day I thought California Chrome broke well enough and that Victor put him in a decent position to go after Mike Smith on Arrogate when he took off during the final turn. But California Chrome didn't respond. As he faded to a ninth place finish, Arrogate and Mike Smith coasted to an easy victory, dominating the first ever "Pegasus." California Chrome retired and is now settling in at Taylor Made Farm in Kentucky, ready for a successful stud career post racing. It was discovered after the race that he had some fluid in his right knee and was obviously sore. After returning to Kentucky, x-rays proved negative which is great news. All the best to him because he gave horse racing a real boost and we are thankful to him. There's a new "best horse" now and his name is "Arrogate." Seeing him race in 2017 should have the racing world very excited. Frank Stronach tried something very creative and bold on January 28th with the Pegasus. I don't know what will happen with this event in the future, but seeing horses continue to race for such a huge purse rather than retire to breed, was refreshing. Most horses have their three-year old campaigns and then that's it. Horses racing beyond that age like California Chrome, a star and the new star, Arrogate, are what the sport needs. California Chrome and American Pharoah have paved the way for horses like Arrogate and the amazing filly, Songbird to take that torch and continue in 2017 to be successful-what racing needs. In all, Miami in January was amazing. I hope to be back for many more at the Pegasus. Again, thank you California Chrome for great racing, and Arrogate...see you at the track, my friend.
King Guillermo upsets at the Tampa Bay Derby paying $100.40 to Win
Pegasus and Mucho Gusto start off 2020 with a KICK
Justify becomes the 13th Triple Crown Champion
Horse Racing Starting Gates: Horse Schooling Gates | Custom Starting Gates | Starting Gate Leasing and Service Contracts
© 2023 by United Puett | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service


La Romana is a tourist destination located in the southeast of the Dominican Republic, half-way between Santo Domingo and Punta Cana. This picturesque town is also a favourite stop for cruise ships. La Romana includes the All Inclusive Resorts in the place as well as the nearby Casa de Campo Resort and Bayahibe complexes. In La Romana you will find the country's most luxurious resort, Casa de Campo, and the impressive Altos de Chavón Village.
When dealing with La Romana Attractions, Altos de Chavón, the Village of artists, is one of those must-visit locations for visitors of La Romana all-inclusive resorts. It has craft workshops, artists' studios, galleries, shops and restaurants that are set up in coral block and terracotta buildings. Since the 1980´s Altos de Chavón has been home to craft workshops in which artisans sculpt ceramics, hand loom weavings and create silkscreen prints under the direction of the prestigious artist Emilio Robba. In narrow cobblestone alleyways there are picturesque shops where you can find the diverse craftwork of local artisans, and three galleries exhibiting the talents of students from the world recognized School of Design.
The Casa de Campo Resort complex is the most outstanding of all the All Inclusive Resorts in La Romana. The resort has 3 championship golf courses, among them the famous Teeth of the Dog designed by renowned architect Pete Dye. It has consistently been ranked as one of the top 50 courses in the world. The Casa de Campo Resort also houses its own polo fields and a private airstrip.
Among La Romana Attractions you will find an attractive excursion to Saona and Catalina, two small virgin islands part of the National Park of the East that have called the interest of many anthropologists because of the evidences of Taino civilization found in the area. Besides, if you are interested in snorkelling, scuba diving, sailing, or just relaxing at the beautiful beaches, Saona and Catalina islands are a very good choice.
Some other La Romana Attractions are the Cave of Wonders, the Underwater Archaeological Reserves and the Padre Nuestro Archaeological Trail.
The Cave of Wonders is a sample of 276 pictographs of rock art, the most important sample left by Taino Indians in the Caribbean. In the Underwater Archaeological Reserves you will find shipwrecked galleons from the beginning of the 18th century, recreated to depict how they looked when discovered. The Padre Nuestro Archaeological Trail will lead you to the unique flora and fauna of the area, as well as to the dwelling areas of ancient Taino Indians.
Other interesting La Romana Attractions are Tabacalera de García and Bayahibe. In the Tabacalera de García you will see how the most prestigious cigars are made, an interesting cultural experience while in the community of Bayahibe, founded as a fishing village in1874, you will learn about its history and its natural surroundings; it is located at just a short distance from the Bayahibe all-inclusive resorts.
When speaking about La Romana Attractions we have to mention the all-inclusive resorts such as Canoa Coral by Hilton, Santana Beach Resort and Casino, Viva Wyndham Dominicus Palace or Sunscape Casa del Mar among others, that provide a wide variety of options from kid's clubs to keep your child entertained to nice restaurants that include Italian, Asian and Mexican food or Dominican delicacies as fresh fish or seafood. There are also great bars, nightclubs and casinos that will let you enjoy spectacular late evening entertainment choices.


Dr. Md. Fidah Hossain is a vastly experienced professional in the vascular surgery. His endeavor as a doctor started in the year 1988, when he passed his MBBS from Rangpur medical College. After the completion of MBBS, Dr. Md. Fidah Hossain went on to study MS in cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, which he successfully passed in the year 2009.
Prior to Joining Samorita Hospital Limited as a Vascular Surgery professional, Dr. Fida Hossain worked at department of vascular Surgery for more than 5 years. Currently, he is also working in the National Institute of Cardiovascular diseases (NICVD)in the department of vascular surgery.
Throughout his career, Dr. Fida Hossain has amassed vast experience in the field of Bypass surgery, artarical occlusion, Emergency vascular surgery. His practical experience in the work enabled him to learn about surgery for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and other Aortic surgery. He also has a commanding knowledge in creation of A.V fistula for dialysis, surgery and management of Artery and veins malfunction and also, in the peripheral blood vessels and peripheral angiogram.
Dr. Fidah also attended multiple conferences, his notable participation includes participation in South Asian Conference of Cardiac Society, Cardiovascular conference organized by NHF&RI.


text:
INHERITANCE LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
These rules only apply when a person dies without leaving a will.
Intestacy in England and Wales
The rules are based partly on 'Degrees of Consanguinity' and partly on a system of precedence. This means that some relatives of the deceased with the same consanguinity, e.g. parents and children, do not inherit equally. The degree of consanguinity between the deceased and his intestate heirs is calculated as follows:
In the direct line, where blood relatives are descended directly from one another, each generation counts one degree. Thus, a father and son are related to one another in the first degree, a grandfather and grandson in the second degree and so on.
With collateral relatives, who are not descended from one another but from a common ancestor, the degrees of consanguinity are calculated by counting from one collateral up to the nearest common ancestor and then down to the other collateral. Each generation is again counted as a degree. Thus, the total degrees of consanguinity is the number of generations between each person and the nearest common ancestor added together. Two brothers are related in the second degree, an uncle and nephew in the third degree and so on.
A wide range of degrees of consanguinity are shown in Figure 71.
Figure 71 Showing Degrees of Consanguinity of Various Relatives
Several versions of this chart have appeared on the internet. They all suffer from the same weakness; they do not differentiate between the different types of removed cousinships, i.e. whether removed forwards or backwards through the generations. To remedy this I have repeated the above chart here using the codes introduced here
Figure 72 Showing Degrees of Consanguinity Using Coded Relationships
For those who prefer a family tree, the pedigree diagram on the next page shows a male version of the above consanguinity chart.
Figure 73 Consanguinity Chart in Pedigree Form (males only)
There follows a reproduction of a diagram published by Consumers' Association giving the rules for the distribution of intestate estates in England and Wales.
Figure 74 The Order of Distribution for Intestate Estates in England and Wales (Elmhirst, 2001)
Intestacy in Scotland
The precedence rules are similar to England and Wales except:
1. Brothers and sisters have equal precedence with parents. If both exist the estate is divided in half.
2. Uncles and aunts come before grandparents.
3. Unlike England and Wales, great uncles and great aunts, second cousins and more remote relatives can inherit.
Intestacy in Northern Ireland
Similar to England and Wales except that more distant relatives can inherit as in Scotland.
Final Comments
The degree of consanguinity used by the legal profession differs from the coefficient of relationship (R) in that the former takes no account of the fact that full sibs are bilineally related (i.e through both parents). Thus, parents and children, who are only unilineally related, are given a higher degree of consanguinity than full sibs even though their R values are the same. The chart used in Figure 72 is redrafted below using coefficients of relationship to show this difference.
Brothers and sisters and the various degrees of uncles and aunts appear to be at a disadvantage in the inheritance stakes. This pattern is similar to the inheritance of titles where direct descendants are usually given precedence over collateral relatives. However, other systems have been used in the past, e.g. with the early Saxon kings the title often passed through a series of brothers before going to the next generation.
The higher relationships of identical twins and double first cousins are not accommodated by any of the rules. However, since the legal measure of consanguinity is not designed to prevent inbreeding, but to provide an easily understood method of apportioning wealth and property, then a little oversimplification may not be a bad thing.
Figure 75 Showing Coefficients of Relationship Between the Deceased and Various Relatives


text:
National War College »
National Defense University »
National War College Alumni Association
Job Seekers, Welcome to NWC Career Center
7 Academic/Faculty Jobs in California
Senior Lecturer (Logistics), AD-1701-05
Institute for Security Governance
Assistant/Associate Professor/Professor & Distinguished Professor
Adjunct Faculty Pool - Multimedia/Graphic Arts
Ohlone College
Faculty Associate – Research Position
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay up to date on our latest news
Copyright © 2013 National War College Alumni Association. All Rights Reserved. The National War College Alumni Association is an independent 501(c)(3) charitable, educational organization. The National War College Alumni Association is a non-federal entity. It is not a part of the Department of Defense or any of its components and it has no governmental status.


When I first saw this cute idea for a healthy Halloween snack, I was a little concerned. I thought the hair was made from black olives. Despite the fact that apples and olives seemed like a weird combo, I was more concerned that I could never get my kids to eat these cute Frankenstein Halloween snacks because despite my best efforts, none of my children will eat olives.
This breaks my heart at Thanksgiving when none of them enjoy putting black olives on their fingers, but that is another story!
Luckily they are dark grapes, something my kids will totally eat! So if you want to make these fun Frankenstein fruit snacks, with olives or with grapes, you can check them out over at Kitchen Fun With My 3 Sons.


I am now +1 week cafeeine free. It was one of my New Year's resolutions. I am drinking decaf in the morning, and laying off sodas (which I have been for a while now).
And after reading articles like this one by John Hopkins Medical Center, with words like "mood altering drug" and "reinforcer" , I am glad to have quit this particular drug cold turkey.
Question: How do you view America's addiction to caffeine? Good, bad, or neutral?
I don't drink coffee too often – maybe once or twice a month just because I like the taste. So when I do drink it, I usually make my own at home and it's decaf. I agree that we shouldn't allow our bodies to be relient upon any drug – only the Holy Spirit. Plus, it'll save ya some money :P.
I've heard some news reports that there's stuff in coffee and tea that's good for you though. Confirm/Deny?
Well, about America's most prominent addiction: I think we could be addicted to worse things as a whole. Although I do think that sometimes (speaking more of recent times) we put too much weight on productivity, and this leads to the idea that more needs to be done, equals us needing stimulants to get all that is expected of us (by ourselves or others) done, equals staying up later, maybe some decreased health, etc. This, in my opinion, plays into the need for America to have everything bigger and better, and to grow without ceasing.
All that said, I will admit that I am personally addicted to caffeine, perhaps to the extreme, as I literally cannot function without coffee in the morning (often 2-3 cups), and basically get a headache if I go too long without it. I tell people that at this point I use caffeine just to get me to 'baseline.' So, yeah, really I have no right to judge others.
But, being that I am in graduate school at the moment, going for my PhD in neuropharmacology , I also feel the need to comment on the 'good for you' statement/question. Some studies do show that caffeine from coffee and tea have beneficial effects, including (short-term) raising awareness and reducing lethargy, and (long-term) decreasing the risk of heart disease. These long-term effects are due to the fact that caffeine is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor (phosphodiesterase is an inhibitor of cAMP), which effectively raises ATP production, providing 'extra' energy for heart muscle to use. But it also promotes vasoconstriction which can aggravate high blood pressure. So, basically if you don't already have high blood pressure it is putatively cardio-protective. Some studies also suggest that it has anti-oxidant properties; and it is known to have anti-inflammatory effects, which is why it has been promoted as good for the skin (along with the vasoconstrictive actions mentioned above), and added to many health and beauty products. Tea has many other added health benefits not from caffeine, as well as those mentioned above. Overall, the benefits/risks of caffeine is a controversial topic among scientists, but most agree that, in moderation, there are no serious risks, and possibly some benefits. As with everything, it affects people differently, and has been shown to cause anxiety, GI disturbances, kidney issues (it is a mild diuretic), insomnia, mood problems, and or general 'fuzziness' in some cases. So, there is certainly reason to cut back, or remove it from the diet altogether – way-to-go, Marc!
Thanks for the comment Callie. I find your expert (seriously) opinion a good read. I think you are right about caffeine addiciton being a result of our need to do more. But I also think it is a result of Starbucks, Coca-cola, PepsiCo, and the like understanding that if American's are addicted, they will be reaching for their products more often. Don't you think the science is there now to make these products taste okay without caffeine as an addative? I think so. Same thing with nicotine and cigarattes. These companies aren't stupid; caffeine = profit.
I understand the benefits of increased ATP production – my question is: do the benefits outweigh the concequences? As you say, that question is hotly debated. That is the scientific question. I am also concerned with the spiritual question that Cris raises. Does God want us having ANY "mood altering" substances other than His Spirit controlling our actions (no matter how "slightly"). That is my main wrestling match. I'm not losing sleep over it, mind you. But it's an interesting developing conviction….
Right. I think the issue is to make the Word of God the norm, and not American culture. Which is a VERY difficult sell for a majority of Christians, much less the general populace.
Oh, sure these things CAN taste fine without caffeine, and you are certainly right about part of the marketing being the addiction itself. In fact, Starbucks' coffees (and some other gourmet brands) contain quite a bit more caffeine (over 50% more) than others, for this very reason, so this is a good point you bring up.
As for whether the 'mood altering substances' are edifying, I think this is certainly something to think about, but it could be taken to the extreme as well. For example, if we say this about caffeine, we also have to include food, which can be very mood-altering, and affects the ultimate 'mood-altering' substances – neurotransmitters – in our brain. Not that there is not a Biblical perspective for eating right as well. I do think that we should question everything, though, so including these things in thought and debate is something to be praised.
Of course, allowing only the Holy Spirit to sustain us is important, and Alicia makes a great point about 'fitting the American standard.' Christians shouldn't. But I don't think a few movies with cursing or addiction to caffeine is the biggest issue. The most important thing, I think, refers to what she said about her desires. We are free in Christ, and this is a radical concept that is true but that Christians sometimes don't feel comfortable with (we like rules – in some ways they are easier). This freedom includes the freedom to not obey (of course this doesn't please the Lord, but it doesn't mean He doesn't give us that freedom), and the freedom to be wrong (which WE don't like). The crux is that 'what we want' changes as our 'will is conformed to the will of Christ.' And maybe, for some, that includes giving up caffeine.
(ok, sorry my posts are so long, compared to everyone else's).
I don't see a per se problem with mood altering drugs like caffeine and alcohol. I agree with Jason … moderation is the purification of the soul. In fact, the Bible states that the "mood altering" aspect of wine is a blessing from God (see verses below). Obviously, God's Word also warns against drunkeness. The key is that being a slave to ANYTHING (mood altering or not) other than God is a sin. I'm not so much concerned with the "health factor" because pretty much 99.9% of the things we eat are bad for us to some extent. We live in the south … if we're not eating BBQ or something fried we're eating vegetables that have been hosed down with pesticides.
He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.


MAX ENTERTAINMENTS, INC. is corporation filed with the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). The DOS ID is 2858626. The business entity is incorporated in Queens County. The entity type is DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION. The initial DOS filing date is 01/17/2003. The address is 30-23 42nd St, Astoria, New York 11103. The city is Astoria, New York. The zip code is 11103. The CEO name is ZAFAR IQBAL.
Current Entity Name MAX ENTERTAINMENTS, INC.
DOS Process Address MAX ENTERTAINMENTS, INC.