Chuck Todd interviews me about alternate histories

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Tachyon Telephone: A Journeyman Extra!

Back with a little focus essay on what could be a very important thread introduced in last night's Journeyman - Episode 4 - on NBC. In 2007, Dan contacts a scientist who has done some work on tachyons - the name our real-life scientists give to particles that might travel at faster-than-light speeds, were such speeds possible. Dan presumably thinks this scientist might know something about time travel (because, again in our reality, some projections of what conditions would permit time travel say it could be linked to faster-than-light travel). Dan has an inconclusive conversation with the scientist, who tells Dan he'll get back to Dan, and-

Later in the show, when Dan is back in the late 1990s, he gets a call from this scientist...

Now, conceivably, the scientist's late 1990s self might have been calling Dan for some reason. But let's assume the scientist was in 2007 when he placed the call to Dan in 1998.

How might this have happened?

Greg Benford, a physicist at University of California-Irvine, and a science fiction writer (and a friend, so I know he's real), published an award-winning novel in 1980 entitled Timescape. In this novel, scientists from the future communicate with scientists in the past via tachyons.

Was that what was happening with Dan in Journeyman last night?

Well, in order for that to have occurred , here's would have been required in the telephone technology. Our telephones and cellphones and iPhones today work by encoding sound into electronic signals - electrons - and sending them through wires, or whatever carrier waves in the air, to receivers, which in turn decode the electronic patterns back into sounds that we can hear. Since electrons and the carrying signals travel at the speed of light, we can talk to anyone anywhere on the Earth just about instantly. Of course, if we try to do this with someone near the Moon, there will be a little delay (the Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth - light travels at 186,000 miles per second).

A tachyon telephone would work the same way - except, rather than the sound being encoded into electrons it would need to be encoded into tachyons (or, if it was encoded into electrons, those electrons would need to be hitched to a tachyon carrier wave).

Presumably our tachyon-knowledgeable scientist in Journeyman would understand this, and might have access to or even constructed a tachyon telephone.

But how about Dan? He would need to have a tachyon telephone in order to receive a call from a scientist in the future (the scientist in 2007, Dan in 1998) and have a conversation with him. Dan is seen using a late-1990s cell phone in last night's episode - his old phone, that he dug out in 2007 (hey, I have one just like it, buried somewhere in my desk!) - but there is no reason to think that it came tachyon enabled.

But Livia, Dan's former lover, also travels around in time, and she might have gotten to Dan's phone at some point, and given it a tachyon chip... a tachyon hack!

Interesting possibilities here, and I'm eager to see how Journeyman develops this.

In the meantime, you might enjoy the following:

Greg Benford's Timescape

my time-travel novel, The Plot to Save Socrates

20-minute podcast: Time Travel in Fact and Fiction







5 minute podcast of this tachyon analysis






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Californication Continues: 10

CalifornicationA soft episode of Californication last night, in which little progress was made in any of the main relationships, but some possibilities are emerging.

The most interesting thread was Mia taking the only copy of Hank's new manuscript (he thinks his only copy was stolen when his car was jacked) to Charlie's office ... where it falls into Dani's hands. She loves it, and being that she wants to be an agent, talks Mia into letting her represent it. Intriguing possibilities here: both the author (Mia) and the agent (Dani) are pretending to their parts. The only thing real about this is the excellence of Hank's manuscript - taken, of course, from really happened between Hank and Mia.

Otherwise, we were treated to a threesome of Hank, Charlie, and a woman Charlie wants to ravage. She's only willing to let Charlie do that if Hank is part of the act...

Charlie's wife is coming around to realizing she's happiest with Charlie, and Karen moved a little closer - once again - to realizing that she and Hank are really soul mates who should be together, but ...

I'm looking forward to some really decisive episodes, such as the two previous pieces on Californication.

See reviews of other Californication episodes: Californication Going On Mondays ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 11: Pivitol Mia ... 12: Californication Comes ... To a Season's End







5 minute podcast review of Californication






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Continuing Journeyman: 4

One of the key threads in NBC's Journeyman - perhaps the key thread - is how many of the people around Dan in 2007 know what he is doing.

The show started with no one. In Episode 2, Dan's wife Katie had to accept that his stories about his absences were more than psychotic illusions when he disappeared from a plane in which both were passengers. Last week in Episode 3, Dan's boss Hugh may have begun to get a clue, when Dan came up with a nickname for Hugh that he hadn't heard in years.

And tonight, in Episode 4, Dan's brother Jack (winningly played by Reed Diamond), is in a men's room with Dan, when Dan goes missing. The window is closed, Dan didn't fall in, so ...

Part of the set-up of the show is that no one sees Dan vanish - he disappears when cohorts step out of the room, or turn their backs - which results in his wife and brother taking longer to realize that Dan is really disappearing.

But now the menage-a-quatre of Dan, Livia, Kate, and Jack is finally beginning to crystalize into awareness of what Dan is doing, and Livia has apparently been doing for a while. I predict that before the season is over, all four will be players in time, working together and at cross-purposes in some kind of plot that is central to the series. (I'd like to say that I traveled a little forward in time, and saw the end of this season, but ... you wouldn't believe me, would you....)

In the meantime, the missions that Dan is sucked into each week are ok, but I find the impact on Dan's life in 2007, and his relationship with Livia, far more interesting. The plot construct of Dan missing in 2007 for the amount of time he is in the past can't help but have interesting, provocative consequences for the 2007 action.

Most time travel stories don't go this route, and instead have the time traveler returning exactly to the time - and place - from which he or she left. That's what I did in my Loose Ends short story series, and in The Plot to Save Socrates. Of course, in those and like stories, the traveler initiates the travel, and can to some extent specify arrival times. This is unlike Dan, who gets yanked into the past with no warning, other than a headache.

One other touch I very much enjoyed in tonight's show. Dan contacts a scientist in 2007 who is an expert in tachyons - hypothetical faster-than-light particles which could play a role in building a time-travel machine, were such a device possible. Dan speaks to the scientist in 2007 ... and the scientist unexpectedly calls Dan back ... in the past, in 1998 ....

Such touches are the spice of time travel tales - and this one is likely the beginning of an important new thread - bring 'em on!

More details on "Loose Ends" and The Plot to Save Socrates

Reviews of other Journeyman episodes: 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 8 ... 9. Dan Unravels His Present ... 10. Jack's In! ... 11. Livia's Beau//Save the Newspaper, Save the World ... 12. The Perfect Time Travel Story ... Lucky 13







8-minute podcast analysis of Journeyman






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Monday, October 15, 2007

Tell Me You Love Me Seven Times

Well, I've now seen seven episodes of Tell Me You Love Me on HBO, and thought I'd report back to you, your dedicated correspondent, about how I think the series is progressing.

First, the sex continues to be explicit and good. Episode 7, still fresh in my mind, had some especially good scenes with Jamie and Hugo, and Carolyn and Palek (separately, that is).

And what about the four ongoing relationship stories? Let's take them in chronological order, starting with the youngest.

Jamie (Michelle Borth) and Hugo (Luke Farrell Kirby): are no longer a couple, even though they were together last night, and who knows what might happen next. Turns out that Jamie, who in the first episode was obsessing about Hugo's wandering eyes, has a history herself. This is one of the signatures of the series: With each couple, we start out thinking that just one of the partners is causing the problem. But we soon learn that both are responsible, in their own ways. Jamie has now slept with two other guys since Hugo left her, and may (though I doubt it) be falling in love with Nick (Ian Somerhalder - Lost's Boone! - he never met Penny on Lost, but it's good to see both of them on Tell Me You Love Me, anyway).

Carolyn (Sonya Walger - Lost's Penny) and Palek (Adam Scott): have for the most part been trying to have a baby (or, at least, Carolyn's been trying), and there are some good surprises in this story that I won't tell you about in case you haven't yet seen
them. I don't see much hope for this couple, mainly because Palek is, I don't know, such a pretty-boy cold fish.

David (Tim DeKay) and Katie (Ally Walker): As I mentioned in my review last month, I find this relationship the most far-fetched: a couple sleeping together in the same bed, but haven't had sex in a year. I mean ... sooner or later, they're close together, half asleep, something should lead to something more ... but, ok, leaving that aside and suspending my disbelief ... Theirs is indeed a complex story, and more than it seemed at first. Katie is contributing to the problem. She confided last night that, when she and David were having sex, she sometimes faked her orgasms... And maybe more than sometimes. I predict that by the end of this season, we'll see this couple making love again, but it will be interesting to see how they get there.

Dr. May Foster (Jane Alexander) and Arthur (David Selby): are clearly a fourth couple, which is a nice touch, since Dr. Foster is also the couples' therapist treating each of the other three couples. We see May and David having some pretty passionate sex - though not as explicit as the first two couples - and I give Tell Me You Love Me credit for going into that largely uncharted territory of hot sex in your seventies. (Hey, it's always good to see a rosy future.) Their problem as a couple is probably the most mundane - a lifelong love of May's, played by Ronnie Cox, comes back into her life when his wife dies. But the story is well rendered.

All said, then, Tell Me You Love Me is keeping the promise it made in the first episode: a portrayal of sex and relationships in diverse walks of life in the 21st century, with not much left covered. The acting is really excellent throughout, and if some of the stories seem a bit strained, the passion of the players more than makes up for it.







5-minute podcast of this review


See also Tell Me You Love Me on HBO and Tell Me You Love Me on Tell Me You Love Me: Episode 8






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Michael Clayton and the Surprise Beginning

Tina and I saw Michael Clayton last night - we liked it a lot.

Although the movie was not without its flaws, I think it hit at least one original mark - doing something better than I recall ever seeing in any other movie.

The movie starts off with a quite involved, detailed sequence. Michael Clayton - played to perfection by George Clooney - gets a call to see a client of his firm, who had left the scene of a hit-and-run in Westchester. We learn something of this client, his wife, and about Clayton, who drives off. The dawn is breaking, Clayton stops at the sight of some horses on the top of a hill. Clayton gets out of his car, walks up the hill to commune with the horses, and-

That's when the movie really begins. Now we have of course seen faux beginnings in James Bond and all kinds of movie. But I don't believe I've ever seen one as effective as this one. Kudos to writer, director, producer Tony Gilroy.

The rest of the movie was good. Some nice surprises, a few slow spots in the middle, and a few things that needed a bit more explanation in the build-up to the finale. In particular, Clayton is too quick to get to the villain - there are others in the fold, in his company, and the other company, who could have been responsible for the bad deeds.

The acting was uniformly excellent. Tom Wilkinson is always good, and was even more so in this movie, as was Sydney Pollack. Bit parts were vivid, too - especially Sam Gilroy (Tony's son) who gives a sharp, memorable minute or so as a kid who works in a copy shop, and Austin Williams, who was superb as Clayon's son.

All in all, a worthwhile, enjoyable, harrowing ride, with touches of Hitchcock, into the heart of darkness that is at least one of the things beating in corporate America.







3-minute podcast of this review








The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book


more about The Plot to Save Socrates...

Get your own at Profile Pitstop.com



Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates
.... FREE!

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Judy Woodruff and the Fine Art of the Interview, with Ron Paul

My student Mike Plugh called this gem to my attention late yesterday - Judy Woodruff interviewing Ron Paul on the PBS NewsHour.



What's so commendable about it?

It's an interview. A real interview, not a slugfest, or worse, an interviewee as punching bag.

An interview. An intelligent conversation between two people. An opportunity for viewers and listeners to really learn something of what and how the interviewee thinks.

Once upon a time, not all that long ago, this was the way most interviews on television were conducted. But that civilized approach somehow was replaced by interviewers who somehow saw their job as interrupting their guests as often as possible with bellicose jabs and nasty cracks.

This is not really a question of politics or liberal vs. conservative. Chris Matthews is almost as offensive in his style as is Bill O'Reilly. I'm much more in tune with Matthews' politics than I am with O'Reilly's, but neither of their interview styles - the self-righteous interruption - does much to enlighten me.

I'll even admit to often enjoying these barkers, especially when the object of their attack is someone I don't agree with. But I can't say I ever felt truly educated or really informed or even just good after seeing their shows. At best, the result is a coarse thrill (same as when I've been a guest on O'Reilly's show). The crooked joy of seeing someone you dislike get bashed, or someone you admire somehow manage to get a word in edgewise.

Not so Woodruff's interview with Ron Paul. Watch it, and see for yourself.

Wouldn't it be nice if, among the other revolutionary developments in this political season, we are beginning to see the recovery of the almost lost art of the interview, the revival of the fine art of intelligent talk on television.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize: No US Supreme Court Could Stop It

The news just went up on the nobelpeaceprize.org - Al Gore (along with the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) has won the Nobel Peace Prize!

No neo-con US Supreme Court was able to get in the way of this.

Whatever the specifics of global warming, Al Gore deserves enormous credit for coaxing the world to think of itself in global terms. He was able to do this, after going through the extraordinary ordeal of winning the popular vote for US President in 2000, and not becoming President.

It is rare that history provides an opportunity to remedy such an error.

I hope Al Gore gives the American people a chance to correct it.

See also Gore's Nomination for Nobe Prize Poetic Justice

Mad Men 12: Admirable Don

What a dynamite, satisfying episode (12) of Mad Men on AMC tonight! The best so far. (I've been saying this about a lot of Mad Men episodes, and that's an indication of the power and charm of the show.)

My favorite scene - tough to choose, because the episode was non-stop mesmerizing - but, it would be Don standing up to despicable Pete, right there in that office with Cooper. Don's steely power was never more clear. He refused to be blackmailed. He goes in to face the music, and prevails.

I loved Cooper in this, too. He doesn't care about Don's past - he cares about Don's ability to land clients and make them happy. Cooper tells Don he can fire Pete if Don wants - Cooper will no longer oppose that - and then Cooper says Don might find that Pete could become incredibly loyal if Don does not fire him. Savvy guy, that Cooper.

Don's scene in Korea and back home after the war - the story at last of how he assumed his identity - was excellent. I knew that Don was not a killer. We're always led to maybe think that he is, but Don always shows that he isn't. He feels guilty because he was responsible for the real Don dying - but it was clearly an accident, one that our Don took advantage of, but not murder. And can anyone blame Don for taking advantage of that situation, given where he had come from, and what little he had to go back to? And that scene with him pulling away on the train, with the coffin at the station .... powerful, indeed.

I wasn't the happiest about Don and Rachel - but maybe that's the only way it could have worked out. Don needed Rachel's refusal to run away with him - needed it to make him come to his senses about standing up to Pete. Are Don and Rachel finished now? Maybe ... not. We'll see... (Great acting, always, from Jon Hamm as Don tonight.)

But, my favorite sex/romantic scene in this show was Harry (Isaac Asimov!)(played by Rich Sommer) and that secretary (played Julie McNiven). It was good to see Isaac get some, even though he was conflicted.

And I almost forgot the Kennedy-Nixon, which I thought would be the high point of the show - which it wasn't, but only because everything else tonight was so good!

On to the finale!

See also reviews of other episodes: Mad Men Debuts on AMC: Cigarette Companies and Nixon ... Mad Men 2: Smoke and Television ... Mad Men 3: Hot 1960 Kiss ... Mad Men 4 and 5: Double Mad Men ... Mad Men 6: The Medium is the Message! ... Mad Men 7: Revenge of the Mollusk ... Mad Men 8: Weed, Twist, Hobo ... Mad Man 9: Betty Grace Kelly ... Mad men 10: Life, Death, and Politics ... Mad Men 11: Heat! ... Mad Men 13: Double-Endings, Lascaux, and Holes ...

20-minute interview with Rich Sommer (Harry Crane) at Light On Light Through








6-minute podcast review of Mad Men






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Open Letter to CNBC about Taking Down Post-Debate Poll Won by Ron Paul

To: Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

From: Paul Levinson, PhD
Professor & Chair, Department of Communication and Media Studies
Fordham University, NYC

re: your An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful of October 11, in which you explain why you took down your poll, conducted after the Michigan Republican Presidential debate, and featured on your web site

1. You invite comments and response to your Open Letter, and provide an e-mail address. Since your action is, in my view, a matter of great public concern, I am not only e-mailing this response to you, but publishing it in my InfiniteRegress.tv blog.

2. I am not one of the "Ron Paul Faithful". Although I greatly admire many of his positions, especially his support of our Constitution, I have not yet endorsed any candidate, and am indeed on record as urging Americans to support the best candidate in each of our two main parties, so as to give us the best choice in the general election. You are welcome to see my How About We Look for the Best Candidate in =Both= Parties for details.

2a. I am writing to you, therefore, as a professor, scholar, and observer of media and politics, with a keen interest in seeing the press serve our democracy as Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers intended - that is, by providing us with the truth wherever possible.

3. Let me now address the issues you raise in your Open Letter:

You write that "these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking".

True, but the "scientific" polls - the ones that rely on random sampling - are subject to error, as well. See, for example, the famous poll that predicted that FDR would lose the 1936 Presidential election.

Also, while the Internet may indeed be subject to hacking, do you have any proof that hacking took place in this case? You further say that your "poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign". Again, your proof?

You further say that "[t]he next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion."

None of the above actions are "hacking". You owe Ron Paul's supporters and the American people an apology.

Indeed, the fact that the polls reflected votes "from Ron Paul chat sites" does not even support your conclusion that your poll was "the target of a campaign" - conceivably some of the votes that came from the sites could have come from people who had come to the sites, impressed by what they saw of Ron Paul in the debate, and then went on to cast their votes in your poll. Does that sound to you like "a campaign"?

You further say that Ron Paul's supporters, presumably including anyone who voted for Ron Paul in your poll, "also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest 'show of hands' -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum."

What do you suppose influences public opinion in any election campaign? What is your definition of an "honest show of hands"? Is a potential voter who expresses support for a candidate, because that potential voter already liked that candidate prior to a given debate, somehow not "honest"? If what you wanted to measure in your poll was how previously undecided people felt about the performance of candidates in the debate, why did you not say so in your poll, and devise some way of measuring this? (For example, trying to identify a sample of undecided voters beforehand, and then asking them for their preferences after the debate?)

Instead, you conclude your Open Letter with the following: "When a well-organized and committed 'few' can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of 'the many,' I get a little worried. I'd take it down again."

Again, you offer no evidence whatsoever that anything in the poll was "thrown," and you similarly offer no evidence about how "few" of the "many" were composed of Ron Paul supporters.

Indeed, you offer no evidence of anything, really - just supposition and innuendo - and that gets me more than a little worried, about your competence and capacity to be Managing Editor of CNBC.com's website.

If something needs to be "taken down," it may well be your position as Managing Editor. I call upon you to either apologize to the American people, or step down.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

CNN's Jack Cafferty on Ron Paul: Excellent Piece

My friend Matt Caverhill brought this to my attention ...



I've been watching Jack Cafferty since he shared the WNBC-TV nightly news spot with Chuck Scarborough here in New York City - decades ago. Chuck continues to hold down the fort in New York. Jack has gone on to become a trenchant, curmudgeonly, valuable national commentator.

He's at his incisive best in this piece. Asking plain but profound questions. What if we brought the troops home from Korea? They've been there 50 years ... The questions that Ron Paul is asking.

As I indicated in my assessment of the five mainstream television networks a few weeks ago, MSNBC and CNN have by and large done the least wrong to Ron Paul and the democratic process, and have been the most reasoned in their coverage. Indeed, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and Pat Buchanan have each indicated some kind of support for Ron Paul and his positions.

It's heartening to see Jack Cafferty doing the same, in his inimitable way, on CNN.

Maybe the mainstream media are beginning to come around. Maybe it's not just the Internet any more...

Heroes Season 2 Episode 3: Hanging Questions

This Monday's episode (3) of Heroes on NBC was in many ways excellent. Good to see Claire getting a super-powered boyfriend, Sylar back in his evil business (if not recuperated in his evil powers), Nikki back in any kind of business (and I don't believe D. L.'s dead), and Hiro and Peter moving along well in their (separate) new stories.

I especially enjoyed Hiro's messages to Ando from the past, and the danger that Mr. Bennet now seems to be...

But I'd like to see a few more answers, already, about how Peter and Nathan survived that explosion in the sky. For that matter, even Sylar's survival - "scraped off the street" by illusion-casting Candice - is in want of more explanation.

Presumably this information will be revealed as the series proceeds. But I'd enjoy the excellent new stories more if I knew a little more about how characters who are supposed to be dead ended up alive and (more or less) well.







3 minute podcast of this review

Review of other Season 2 Heroes: Episode 1 ... 2 ... 4 ... 7 ... 9. How Immutable Are Fate and Isaac's Paintings? ... 10. Penultimate in Fall ... 11. My Predictions Last Week Were Right!







The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Evolution of Science Fiction ... my 6-minute tour...



My infamous 6-minute tour on the history and evolution of science ... from The History Channel's 2002 Time Machine series...

From Mary Shelley through H. G. Wells, George Melies, Hugo Gernsback, Ray Bradbury, William Gibson ... I comment on all of them and more ... scientific romances, bug-eyed monsters, cyberpunk, and bio-tech science fiction ... with some really cool pictures as accompaniment...

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Californication Continues: 9: The Manuscript

CalifornicationI gave this review of Californication, Episode 9, a title, because that was its central theme: the manuscript. Or, more precisely, the manuscript for a new short novel - or, as Hank called it, a "novella" (I love that term - and that length manuscript - one of my most successful publications was a novella - "Loose Ends," a time travel story, that was published in Analog Magazine in the late 1990s.)*

But back to Hank: he's written a novella while in New York. He had gone there for his father's funeral, after a great night of intimacy in all ways with Karen, and stayed on in New York to do some writing. Karen had inspired him.

Back in L.A., Hank wants Karen to read it. He's always counted on her reading of his work. He also wants her to marry him.

Charlie's thrilled about the new manuscript - money, money, money. Speaking of which, Hank gets a big unexpected royalty check for the movie made from his novel....

Mia's thrilled about the manuscript, too, and wants to read it. (Hank lets us know at some point that it's about a guy who sleeps with an under-age woman, but doesn't know about that at time ... hmmm ... Hank writes from what he knows.)

So everyone's pretty happy at this point - a rarity in Californication.

But not Karen, who, it seems, wants to stay with that stiff of a fiance, after all (I don't really believe her).

Things even turn worse, suddenly, for Hank .... but there's a great surprise ending, and, I won't give it away, except to say, it's all about that manuscript....

Great show tonight.
=============================================================

*More about Loose Ends

See reviews of other Californication episodes: Californication Going On Mondays ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 8 ... 10 ... 11: Pivitol Mia ... 12: Californication Comes ... To a Season's End







5 minute podcast review of Californication






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Republicans on Economics and More on CNBC: Thompson, Romney, Giuliani and Ron Paul

Here are some of the highlights and lowlights that struck me in the Republican Presidential debate which concluded a few minutes ago in Michigan. It was on CNBC, and will be repeated tonight at 9pm on MSNBC:

Fred Thompson: started out almost comatose, and then settled in. But he's fuzzy on most of the issues, and looks like Dwight David Eisenhower on a bad day. His best moment was responding to a pretty good crack by Romney, about the Republican debates being like Law and Order - a big cast, goes on forever, and Fred Thompson comes in at the end. Thompson smiled and said, not bad, and I thought I was going to be the best actor up here.

Mitt Romney: his response to whether the President needs to consult Congress before going to war - Romney said he'd leave that to the attorneys - was one of the lowest points, not only in this debate, but in American history, period. (See Ron Paul's response to this, below.)

Rudy Giuliani: his response about whether the Internet required FCC-like cultural policing was troubling, to say the least. He's not in favor of creating new government agencies, but he might look into it, if the problem doesn't subside. But, what's the problem? No one disputes the need of police to go after predators, on and off line. The question was about the "cultural" problems of the Internet (porn?) and what should be done about that. A better answer would have been: "The FCC is unconstitutional even as a regulator of broadcasters. The last thing I would do is extend its violation of the First Amendment to the Internet." Too bad Ron Paul didn't get a chance to answer that question. Fortunately, Ron Paul did get a chance to respond about the President going to war...

Ron Paul: his finest moment was his outrage over Romney's gibberish about consulting attorneys. Read the Constitution, Ron Paul said - it clearly says that Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that. You need to be just minimally literate.

Also admirable was Ron Paul's unwillingness to blindly support whoever gets the Republican nomination - that nominee would need to stop following Bush's disastrous and unconstitutional foreign policy.

It's rare indeed to hear a political candidate in either party speak such plain truth to the American people, and to the world.

Continuing Journeyman: 3

I think what I liked best about Episode 3 of Journeyman on NBC last night was the conversation between Dan and Hugh Skillen (played by Brian Howe, whom we saw as the medical examiner in Deja Vu) at the end. Dan, unable to save Skillen's sister from the 1989 earthquake in San Francisco, did pick up from her that Hugh was called "the Hulk". Dan mentions the name to Hugh, who wonders how Dan, in 2007, could have known that Hugh was once called that...

In other words, Hugh Skillen, like Dan's wife (but not yet his brother), is slowly being drawn into Dan's time-traveling reality. A seed has been planted, which may eventually allow Dan to call upon Hugh for help. Perhaps Hugh is even at the first stage of being recruited into this time-traveling, or whatever the process that calls upon Dan to perform his services.

Livia is course much further along in this than Dan, but we still don't know what it is that is driving both Livia and Dan, in their separate yet intertwining ways.

That's ok. Journeyman needs time to breathe, to develop and make clear the depth of its complex stories. Another nice touch in last night's story was Al Pratt (John Billingsley) having an impact in the present after Dan saves him in the past.

All of this is good time-travel story-telling - a rarity in movies, novels, and television.

The show isn't doing too well in the ratings - not surprising. Other than the time travel, Journeyman appeals to a very audience than does Heroes, which Journeyman follows.

I hope NBC gives Journeyman time to find its own audience.

Reviews of other Journeyman episodes: 1 ... 2 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 8 ... 9. Dan Unravels His Present ... 10. Jack's In! ... 11. Livia's Beau//Save the Newspaper, Save the World ... 12. The Perfect Time Travel Story ... Lucky 13







8-minute podcast analysis of Journeyman






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Marshall McLuhan as Micro Blogger


Marshall McLuhan died on the last day of 1980 - not only years before there was Twitter, micro-blogging and blogging, but a few years before e-mail and commenting on Web pages.

In 1986, I wrote a piece for the IEEE Transactions of Professional Communications entitled "Marshall McLuhan and Computer Conferencing," in which I said that the pithy bursts which characterized his writing - his great works from the 1960s consisted of chapters often not more than a page or two in length - were actually a form of web writing ("computer conferencing") decades before the Web and online communication emerged. I've attached that article below.

Just today, I realized something more about McLuhan's writing. The memorable titles he gave to his short chapters - for example, "The Medium is the Message" in Understanding Media (1964) or "Nobody ever made a grammatical error in a non-literate society" in the Gutenberg Galaxy (1962) (which has 107 of these gems) - were actually micro-blogs.

Blogging in his page-or-two chapters, micro-blogging in the titles or "glosses" (his term) he gave them. All of this back in 1962 and 1964.

McLuhan was in touch with a mode of expression, a vehicle of the human intellect, which was clear and comfortable in his mind, even though the technology of its delivery was still decades away from invention.

**Note added 25 February 2009: Section on McLuhan as Microblogger in "Twitter" chapter of my new book New New Media, to be published September 2009

==========================================================
MARSHALL McLUHAN and COMPUTER CONFERENCING

by Paul Levinson

First published in IEEE Transactions of Professional Communications,
March 1986, pp. 9-11.



As far as I know, Marshall McLuhan never owned a
personal computer. He never was part of a computer network,
and never engaged in computer conferencing. Certainly his
landmark Understanding Media (1964) and The Gutenberg Galaxy
(1962) were published years before the development of personal
computers and the types of communication they make possible.

But even had McLuhan's contributions been made 20 years
later, they no doubt would have been made without the services of
computers. For McLuhan was a firm believer that those in the
belly of a technology were blind to its effects, and he
credited much of his perspective on media to his habitat in
Canada several miles above and beyond the media milieu of
the United States.

Yet for all their aloofness from the electronic world they
detail, McLuhan's writings epitomize a kind of Joycian, stream
of consciousness flow that can best be described as
electronic. Critics never tired of citing McLuhan's writing
style as the best evidence he offered in support of his
contention that writing had become outmoded, and much of the
popular misconception that McLuhan was "against" writing and
print stemmed from his admitted attempt to break free of
traditional typographic styles of narrative and composition.

And so the question of how to understand McLuhan, what
to make of the relationship between the structure and the
content of his work, continues to interest all who
write about him. I raise this issue once again because I
think I have found a most astonishing key, an unexpected
Rosetta Stone, that goes a long way towards answering
this question. Architects of computer conferencing most likely
paid little or no attention to the style of McLuhan's writing
in design of their programs. And McLuhan simply couldn't
have had any knowledge of computer conferencing when he
wrote his main works. And yet recent experience in the
medium of computer conferencing struck me with how
literally the prose collages of McLuhan's books resemble the
transcripts of computer conferences.

What Is Computer Conferencing?

In the spring of 1984, I was hired by the
Western Behavioral Sciences Institute to teach a course by
computer teleconferencing for their School of Management and
Strategic Studies. Faculty (known as conference moderators or
facilitators) meet in person with students (known as conference
participants) at the Institute's premises in paradisiacal
La Jolla for week-long seminars twice a year. Thereafter
faculty and students scatter to the far corners of the
Earth (students in my class come from Australia,
Sweden, and Colombia, though most of the participants
are business, government, and non-profit executives located
in the U.S.), to give and receive instruction and
enlightenment entirely through the Kaypros, DEC-Rainbows, and
assorted other personal computers in their homes and places of
business.

Before detailing some of the features of computer
conferencing, let me give a little background on the more
general medium of electronic mail of which computer
conferencing is a part. In a sense, electronic exchange
of written information began with the telegraph and continued
with the telex, long before personal computers and
electronic networks for consumers became feasible. But the
privacy and convenience of the telephone quickly usurped
the lion's share of electronic communication from the
telegraph, and until the past decade the telephone and the paper
mail system constituted the main long distance communication
options for most people. Communication via computers provides
an important and in many respects superior third
alternative, offering the privacy, immediacy, and
convenience of the telephone, with the permanence and
opportunity for formality afforded by the written word.

Although direct, unmediated communication between
personal computer and personal computer is
technologically possible, it is at present expensive and
inefficient, with the result that most communication between
computers is conducted via larger third party computers
that serve as clearing houses. Such an approach of
course tends to reduce the likelihood of immediate
exchanges (though two computers "on-line" with the central
computer at the same time can easily communicate with each
other in real, immediate time), but has the advantage of
offering ancillary services such as storage of long
documents, sending of simultaneous messages to large groups,
etc. which are difficult or impossible for many
personal computers. In the standard procedure, I send you
a message by composing it on my home computer and
electronically transmitting it (through telephone lines)
to the clearing house computer; you receive my message by
using your home computer to electronically contact
the clearing house; I receive a confirmation from the
clearing house that you've received my message (and a response
from you if you've provided it) the very next time I
contact the central computer after you've received my
message, and the central system will usually keep a copy of my
message to you on hand (for our eyes only) for a specified
period of time.

The Western Behavioral Sciences Institute
conducts its computer conferences through the Electronic
Information Exchange System (EIES, pronounced
"eyes"), situated in a mini- computer at the New Jersey
Institute of Technology in Newark. In a typical conference, the
faculty moderator sets the agenda with a few
introductory comments of about 25-50 lines in length, and
assigns a few background readings (often summarized
in other comments available on-line). The
conference system allows all participants (usually anywhere from
5 to 75 students, and 5 to 10 participant faculty in
addition to the moderator) to enter comments into the
conference and to read all comments entered by others
(procedures exist for allowing some people to read only
or write only in a conference, and the moderator has a
seldom used authority to delete a participant's comment
deemed unseemly). In the month's time allotted for most
conferences, 5 to 15 participants along with the
moderator regularly contribute 5 to 10 comments per
week, while the other participants for a variety of
reasons choose to read only or comment very infrequently. The
end of the conference usually yields a total of 100 to 150
comments of about 5 to 100 or more lines in length,
loosely integrated around a central theme.

Andrew Feenberg (Professor of Philosophy at San
Diego State University) ran a conference for WBSI on
"Utopia and Dystopia" in June 1984. Feenberg, associated
with the Institute since its entry into computer conferencing
in 1982 and an old hand at moderating these events, describes
his experience in June as "a bit like a publisher working
together with peers and colleagues to produce a sort of
magazine in which all readers can become writers."
Although the multi-authorship makes the magazine metaphor
apt, the length of each comment (too small) and number
of total comments (too large) are not consistent with most
magazines.

I propose, then, a different way of looking at the
products of computer conferences. I suggest that,
notwithstanding the fact that these conferences are multi-
authored, their results are virtually identical in texture
and rhythm to the so-called electronic, reader
directed, pre-computer writings of Marshall McLuhan.

McLuhan as Computer Conferencer

McLuhan was quite deliberate in pursuit of a
writing style that many viewed as incomprehensible, overly
playful, or an outright slap in the face of conventional
scholarly form. In his Introduction to Harold Innis' The
Bias of Communication , McLuhan extols the "mosaic"
approach that both writers employed: It offers snap shots
from various angles of the big picture, rather than a series
of descriptions that attempt to construct a larger whole in
an orderly, step-by-step fashion. Because each snap shot or
piece of the mosaic is equidistant from the central theme
and the other snap shots, each can serve as an entry
point, review, or food for further thought on the main topic.
A book of such pieces is thus accessible from any
point, and can be read backwards, forward, from the
middle backwards and forward, and indeed in any way the
reader chooses. In this sense the reader becomes
the writer of McLuhan's books. (Although Innis' work was as
imaginative and compressed as McLuhan's, it was a good deal
more traditional in its narrative approach, and never fully
achieved the mosaic style that McLuhan attempted.)

McLuhan offered the mosaic as essential to capturing the
complexity and speed of the electronic age, but the roots
of this approach of course go as far back as Nietzsche and
indeed the Greek mystics who served as Nietzsche's (and
no doubt McLuhan's) inspiration. Nonetheless, McLuhan's
style has quite rightly become identified with the attempt of
the written word to come to grips with
electronic culture, and is quite consistent with what has
more recently been termed the "holographic" method of
understanding reality (after Karl Pribram's observation
that the cells of the human brain function redundantly,
each containing traces of the information contained in
all others, in much the same way as pieces of a holographic
plate each contain the whole, three dimensional picture
recorded on the original, intact plate.)

Dig out your yellowing paperback of Understanding Media,
or better, The Gutenberg Galaxy, if you have it. (GG,
predictably out of print in the United States, was
McLuhan's quintessential work, acknowledged as such by the
author. The more widely known UM is actually a
bit more traditional in style, while subsequent works such
as The Medium is the Massage and War and Peace in the
Global Village are much more drastic in their
eschewal of any narrative thread.) After a brief, agenda-
setting introduction, The Gutenberg Galaxy proceeds
with 107 pieces, about 50-150 lines in length, on topics
ranging from Greek art to Descartes and Heidegger. Pieces are
occasionally grouped around specific themes such as the
effect of the alphabet on Greek culture, but they
nonetheless manage to be free-floating,
overlapping, self-contained, reinforcing little essays
spinning like satellites around the globe of what impact
written forms of expression have had on human life throughout
the ages. Like the holographic cells noticed by Pribram,
each contains a blueprint and entree to all others.

Now let us look at Feenberg's June 1984 computer
conference on "Utopia and Dystopia" (or, if you like,
at virtually any other computer conference conducted on EIES,
The Source, Compuserve, or any network of your choosing).
After the moderator's opening remarks, a group of about
six including the moderator generated 122 comments ranging in
length from several to more than a hundred lines each.
Again, comments were often grouped around subthemes such as
rationality and its perversion in dystopias (and moderator
and participants often made a deliberate effort to
respond specifically to earlier comments), but the general
result was a constellation of free-floating tiny essays,
each providing more or less equal access to the central theme.

The two striking differences in composition of a
computer conference and a McLuhan book are that computer
conferences are group efforts produced in a month and
McLuhan's books were the work of one person (later two)
certainly at toil much more than a month. Yet the
similarities in outcome of these two sharply different
modes of production suggest that the many creating for
a brief period in some way balance the one creating for a much
longer time.

None of this, of course, is meant to suggest that
the results of computer conferences (at least those of
which I am aware) have in any way yet equalled the scope and
originality of McLuhan's writings. It is the congruence
in style and organization to which I am calling attention,
and which I believe holds an important message for those
who have learned from McLuhan's work, and those many more who
have been frustrated by it.

McLuhan was no clairvoyant. The unwitting fulfillment
of his writing style in computers a few years after his
death and decades after his major work is evidence of
something quite else: striving mightily to transcend
the limits of print stuck to paper, struggling against
the professional norms of his time and a backdrop of
electronic media that conveyed only sounds and pictures,
McLuhan somehow managed to produce a corpus perfectly suited
to an electronic medium not yet invented. The apostle
of medium over content created content that defied the
media of its day and hung around waiting for the world to catch
up and on. Not so much ironic is it as another example --
perhaps the best yet -- of how profoundly in tune
McLuhan was with the tempo of our century.
====================

Shoutout for Joe Torre

So, the Yanks lost tonight - the third straight year they didn't go on to the World Series after making it into the playoffs, and everyone's disappointed, and George said the other day that if the Yankees didn't progress then Joe Torre might be finished as Yankee skipper...

But let me say the obvious: Third straight year that the Yankees didn't make it to the series after getting into the playoffs? For any other manager, that would be cause for the owner offering a hefty long term contract. How many other teams make it in the playoffs year after year - in the case of the Yankees and Joe Torre, 12 years, to be exact, with World Series wins and all.

But that's not the most important reason that Joe Torre deserves credit and continuation, in my book.

In the end, baseball is just a game. What lasting value it has comes from the humanity and lessons its players give to the world.

And when it comes to that, no one holds a candle to Joe Torre. He has brought to baseball a whole new level of decency, rationality, and humanity. I'm old enough to remember Casey and of course Billy, and they had their moments, but they were a different species of manager compared to Joe.

He has taught the world not only how to win - but how to lose, if it happens, with dignity. Since no one, no team, can possibly win all the time, that's a crucially important lesson.

I hope George Steinbrenner thinks a moment about this, before he announces the future for the Yankees.

Friday, October 5, 2007

Mad Men 11: Heat!

With the early October temps in 80s here in New York City, there couldn't be a better day to review last night's Episode 11 on AMC's Mad Men which, in one way or another, was all about heat...

Peggy's asked to test out and analyze for her second ad campaign a device that is supposed to help women lose weight. The guys are trying to figure out why some women seem to really like it - it's an electric belt that is supposed to massage away fat - even though there is no evidence that it really melts away any weight.

Peggy discovers its secret: its vibrations give women orgasms. The problem is how to explain this to Don and the guys - which she does a pretty good job of doing.

Meanwhile, Betty has her own hot experience. With the temperature high and uncomfortable in this Indian summer, Betty gets a call from a traveling air conditioner salesman. (The traveling salesman is another great artifact, long gone from our culture.) Betty lets him in, she's attracted to him, but buys nothing and tells him to leave. She later tells Don, who is furious - about as angry as we've seen him - that Betty has let in a stranger. Little does Don know that later, in one of the most interesting scenes of the series, Betty fantasizes about the salesman as she enjoys the vibrations of the washing machine against her .... enjoys the vibrations a lot ... Like I said, it was a hot show.

There's no hot physical sex tonight between Joan and Roger, back in the office to put up a show for a client, even though he is still far from recuperated. But there is perhaps the tenderest kiss in the series. Joan asks if it's ok to kiss him.... He tells her a few seconds after that she was the best piece of ass he ever had.

I found this scene really winning and memorable. Joan is among my top 3 or 4 favorite characters on the show - not just because of what she looks like, but what she says. Christina Hendricks and John Slattery put in their best performances.

But Roger suffers a second heart attack, which leads to Don's getting made a partner in the firm ... as we move into next week's show, about Nixon and Kennedy, just one before the finale...

A superb series, which I'm sorry to see conclude, but I'll be looking forward to round two of next year.

See also reviews of other episodes: Mad Men Debuts on AMC: Cigarette Companies and Nixon ... Mad Men 2: Smoke and Television ... Mad Men 3: Hot 1960 Kiss ... Mad Men 4 and 5: Double Mad Men ... Mad Men 6: The Medium is the Message! ... Mad Men 7: Revenge of the Mollusk ... Mad Men 8: Weed, Twist, Hobo ... Mad Man 9: Betty Grace Kelly ... Mad men 10: Life, Death, and Politics ... Mad Men 12: Admirable Don ... Mad Men 13: Double-Endings, Lascaux, and Holes

20-minute interview with Rich Sommer (Harry Crane) at Light On Light Through








6-minute podcast review of Mad Men






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

My Sept 28 2007 Lecture at Fordham University about the Media Misreporting of Ron Paul



This is the lecture I delivered to my "Introduction to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University on September 28, 2007 about the media misreporting of Ron Paul.

The lecture, with student questions at the end, was about 50 minutes. It's divided in five parts on the YouTube video, as follows: 1. history of polling ... ABC May 2007 misreporting of Ron Paul ... 2. ABC continues misreporting Ron Paul (early August 2007).... 3. Mark Levin urges disinformation against Ron Paul on ABC radio ... Kucinich gets cropped ... the First Amendment ... 4. Hannity & Colmes misreport Ron Paul on Fox News ... reasons behind all of this ... 5. I answer student questions ...

Note that the above is, of course, current only as of September 28, 2007, and contains no mention of ABC affiliate WMUR TV in New Hampshire failing to cover the Ron Paul "Family Day" rally on September 30...

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Heroes Season 2 Proceeds

The new season of Heroes proceeds ... like a shattered puzzle slowing coming back together, and enlivened by some new pieces.

It seems to me that, so far in the new season, Heroes is giving more equal attention to more stories per episode, and that's good. We've yet to see any of Niki (next week, according to the coming attractions), but Claire, Matt, Mohinder, Hiro, and now Peter are all involved in chewy stories - tales which will slowly pull themselves into one.

My favorite, as usual, is Hiro's. Last night we saw him perform the task of the 16th century hero he admires - in other words, create the very legend which he thought he'd have the pleasure of observing when he came to in the past. This is an old time-travel trick - the time traveler, for better or worse, causes the very event that the traveler went to the past to either safeguard or prevent. (I did a little of this with time traveler Sierra Waters in The Plot to Save Socrates.) It got a nice little rendition last night, replete with Hiro's mannerisms coming through Kensei's armor.

As for the new pieces, we have a good couplet in the twins who are trying to get to American from the south. The woman can psychically poison, her brother has the power of antidote.

And speaking of poison, it looks as if Sylar will be back in business next week...







3 minute podcast of this review

Review of other Season 2 Heroes .... Episode 1 ... 3 ... 4 ... 7 ... 9. How Immutable Are Fate and Isaac's Paintings? ... 10. Penultimate in Fall ... 11. My Predictions Last Week Were Right!






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Californication Continues: 8

CalifornicationA psychologically rich and very satisfying Episode 8 of Californication on Showtime last night, occasioned by the death of Hank's father Al (well played by vet actor Mark Margolis).

We get an excellent back story, in which we see not only Hank's relationship with his father, but the crumbling of his relationship with Karen (when they were still together), all occurring as the accursed "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" is being filmed. (Again, I gotta say that, as a science fiction author, I wish I had such aggravations.)

The explanatory power of this back story - shot in a slightly different lighting - reminded me, of all things, of Lost, and its back stories. As in Lost, the back story in Californication last night moved the story forward in a critically important way. Hank and Karen are falling apart in the back story, and pulling closer together in the present.

The last five minutes were especially satisfying. Karen finally sleeps with Hank. Perhaps it's partly a mercy act, but Karen clearly enjoys it, and, as we already knew, she has feelings for Hank.

They're flying off to New York for Al's funeral in two planes, but I'm looking to seeing if and how they draw closer together in the next episodes.

See reviews of other Californication episodes: Californication Going On Mondays ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 9 ... 10 ... 11: Pivitol Mia ... 12: Californication Comes ... To a Season's End







5 minute podcast review of Californication






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Monday, October 1, 2007

Continuing Journeyman: 2

The second episode of Journeyman crystallized what I was thinking (and wrote) about the premier of Journeyman last week: the new NBC time travel series is really about the intricate, time-entwined personal lives of the central characters, unlike Quantum Leap, in which Sam's personal life only rose into story prominence on very special occasions.

Journeyman is clearly - and, so far, tantalizingly - the cat's-cradle story of four people. Dan (Kevin McKidd) and Livia (Moon Bloodgood) are time travelers, erstwhile lovers, and maybe more. Livia's further along in this time travel business than is Dan, but Dan is the focus of the story.

Meanwhile, Dan's slowly managing to convince his wife Katie (Gretchen Egolf) that he's time traveling. This week, Dan time-vaults to the past from a plane, in which he is seated next to Katie - a nice touch, for this leaves no way she can think he just tripped out on the street somewhere, and that's why he's not home.

And Katie and Dan's brother, Jack, were once a couple. While Jack - a cop (great to see Reed Diamond from Homicide back in the mix) - intersects with Dan in his time traveling, as well as in the present.

This nearly menage-a-quatre is much more than just emotional backdrop for the story. It is emerging as the story, though we haven't seen all that much of it yet.

As for Dan's "missions" - which he is yanked into without warning - we have now seen two. They bear an interesting similarity: the real purpose of the mission isn't revealed until the end, and it's not what we think it to be. Also, at this point, the missions have all been about non-famous individuals - no attempt to save JFK from assassination (which I and I bet half the science fiction writers in the world did in at least one story we wrote)*.

In its individual rather public-event focus, Journeyman is also like Quantum Leap, which only only once or twice a season had Sam figure in attempting to avert a public tragedy of the past.

But next week, Journeyman will take a shot at this, too. The coming attractions show Dan at the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, where he will have to choose which of three people to save.

I'm betting that there will also be an important element of his personal life at stake in this, too. I'm looking forward.

*That would be the "Loose Ends" saga for me - which I actually started writing in 1974, but I didn't get around to publishing until 1997.







8-minute podcast analysis of Journeyman


Reviews of other Journeyman episodes: 1 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 8 ... 9. Dan Unravels His Present ... 10. Jack's In! ... 11. Livia's Beau//Save the Newspaper, Save the World ... 12. The Perfect Time Travel Story ... Lucky 13






The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Now ABC Affiliate WMUR TV Neglects to Cover Ron Paul in New Hampshire

The Free Market News Network reports that WMUR neglected to cover Ron Paul at his "Family Day" rally in Manchester, New Hampshire this past weekend. WMUR is a state-wide television operation, with headquarters in Manchester.

What struck me most about this was not the lack of coverage itself - infuriating and undemocratic - but the fact that WMUR is ... an ABC affiliate!

Just this past Friday, at the lecture I delivered to my "Intro to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University (we'll have the video up on YouTube soon), I detailed a series of outrageous ABC misreportings of Ron Paul since May - ranging from leaving him out of poll results to using photography to make his supporters seem far fewer at a rally in Iowa than they in fact were. But I concluded, in an effort to be fair, that ABC seems to have been improving in the accuracy of its reporting lately, with Fox making the worst transgressions.

But here we are, once again, with a national ABC television affiliate apparently up to the same old business. If the Free Market News story is correct - and it's been up online all day with no opposing comments offered - then ABC is continuing to dig itself into a hole it may never get out of.

Because, whatever happens in this election, the shameful performance of ABC News at so many junctures - regarding mostly Ron Paul, but also, at least once, Dennis Kucinich - will not be forgotten. Indeed, I expect it will be a section in many a textbook about media and politics. I know I certainly will be putting something about this in my next edition of The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution.


See reviews of the most recent edition of The Soft Edge.
InfiniteRegress.tv