A Call to Arms*

“The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” is a short film by journalist and director Naomi Klein, with collaboration from Alfonso Cuarón. It explores the time correlation of radical political action, especially free-market change, to social “shocks”- coups, natural disasters, acts of terrorism, invasions, etc.

The film itself is a demonstration of the point that the directors are arguing: the entire film is less than seven minutes, the aesthetics and visual themes prevalent throughout the film are very raw—often utilizing sharp color contrast, Banksyian animation, and graphic live footage of disasters and shocks—and facts and figures are flashed on the screen only long enough for the audience to grasp the key points of the quote. While the end of the film is peaceful—a woman running along a length of barbed wire that transforms into a flowering vine—that scene was also a continuation of the demonstration, by stating conclusions and assuming the audiences’ consent immediately after bombarding them with a short and extremely intense film.
While I am not sure that I could effectively utilize the shock effect in my risk communication, as it would be much better served and executed in non-written media, I [enjoy] consider for my own use the stark aesthetics and the highlight produced by simple visual contrast. The use of contrast also in the continuation of the same calm narration throughout the visual chaos also was intriguing and caught my attention—and seemed like something that could be well utilized in almost any form of risk communication.

Overall, I felt that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was an incredible [artistic] piece of risk communication: it was effective, efficient, moving. He created a passion evoking character and message, and he carried it admirably all the way through what almost felt like a friendly allegory.
For example, the strength of the soundtrack came from Al Gore himself- literally: the fact that he maintained the role of both main character and the calm and steady narrator almost entirely throughout hugely intensified his message. That he could hold true to a single character and a steadfast message while speaking alternately about the disparate subjects of his sister’s battle with cancer, statistics, polar ice drilling, and narration of a cartoon with an almost boiled frog, had a trust-evoking impressiveness.
All the more was the jar when he made some blatant errors that broke the vision that he was so otherwise adeptly weaving.
- He attempted to build personal credibility with shocking traces of the stilted presidential candidate that alienated audiences in 2000: his self-deprecating personal jokes at the beginning fell a little flat, and his narrative voice shouting that he was just an average guy cracked with the repeated shots of him walking through the airport carrying his own luggage.
- He referred to an Upton Sinclair quote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” while he himself was performing in support of a platform as a salaried speaker.
- With almost all the figures he presents, he does so looking directly into the camera- if someone can look you in the eye, they’re trustworthy, right?
- All the experts he introduced were friends of his, college professors, people he kned personally. It actually makes my skin crawl a little when everyone is your friend.
- He threw in a desperate everyman bid that he too watched Futurama- but a cartoon endorsing his product didn’t really mesh very well with the rest of the film (I wander if Matt Groening, famous expert cartoonist, was his friend also…)

Other than perhaps the inadequate resources for risk communication inherent in the course (I would be able to communicate infinitely more effectively as the manager of a team of writers, programmers, and designers who were all significantly more talented than I than as the actual writer and designer), I do not believe that the organization of which I am a part—or the role that I am playing—really places too many constraints on effective risk communication.

The main difficulties that I have encountered in acting as an effective risk communicator are products of my own creation. I have experienced some difficulty in restraining myself—as the constraints placed on me by my audience limit my freedom of [vitriolic] expression. Because I am making an effort to actually be heard, and my opinions and stances acknowledged as worth consideration, there are significant emotional constraints which need to be dealt with, and a lot of anger that needs to be filtered out: it is interesting to note the changes in tone and diction between initial drafts and what is finally presented and deemed as [at least minimally] suitable for posting and general consumption (suffice to say that third party intervention is often required). I have also suffered the constraint in my writing of not being able to fully understand the value systems that directly oppose my own. Having to shy away from an audience simply because of ignorance is frustrating for me as the writer, and also makes me a less effective communicator.

Published materials and distributables by [non-profit] organizations
Materials distributed by organizations- pamphlets, flyers, newsletters, etc.—tend to discuss risk as pertaining to the agenda of the organization footing the bill: for printing, paying the distributor, paying the designers and writers… While the information being presented and the risks being analyzed and assessed are probably accurate—as the organization would not want to be associated with propagation of false statements—the slant of the presentation is highly variable both in degree and in direction. Spin is an amazing thing for the dissemination of information: figures lie and liars figure; social altruism is a rare find when money is changing hands.

Journalism/ articles in [popular] media
A journalist may be out for social change, but he will not be published without the assent of the publisher, and he will not be read without at least some sensationalism. People writing for professional media are, well, professionals—they are being paid to write. Risk communication does not necessarily sell: mass media caters to what will move their product—cover stories feature human interest, not social commentary. If the issue at stake concerns a minority group, minority groups are also minority buyers. Some closet case being abused by the military isn’t in the suburban backyard of the main demographic paying money for news—and they don’t want to hear about it.

Blogging
Perhaps the most honest risk communication left is the blog; honesty does not imply or correlate in any way to accuracy, unfortunately, but at least intent is [mostly] pure. Someone looking for information or a story in the style and content-flavor of mass media will read mass media—blogs can cater to a different audience. While the blog will definitely have the tint of the author, the author is someone who is invested in the writing insofar as they have a genuine interest in the subject, to the extent where they want to spend their time telling other people about it. Admittedly, there will be a lot of kids with nothing better to do than describe in intimate detail the risks of being an angry teenager with too much free time and how hard being in that position is, but there will also be people with actual passion for a subject that they know is worth other people’s time.

In researching for my paper, I will wade through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), US Codes, Department of Defense (DoD) Directives, relevant court decisions, and any other legal authority for any and all things applicable to the prosecution and punitive measures taken against service members in a discriminatory fashion. PITTCat searches for journal articles concerning various aspects of military law would also be helpful, as would general searches for articles in law libraries (Cornell has a good one).  Juxtaposing American law with European law, such as from The European Court of Human Rights (who have a friendly website) could also be informative.

More from the beginning of the project: statements about what I would have liked to discover about issues and thier feasibility as a long term project (K-W-H-L statements)

Decline of technical higher education in the United States:

Because math and sciences are underfunded and underemphasized in the U.S., there has been a severe decline of American students graduating with higher level degrees in technical majors. This isn’t great for the American economy and/or undergrads whose TAs don’t speak English.

The current administration has overseen numerous budget cuts to education and to the National Science Foundation. Higher education admission rates for American students in hard sciences in are declining. International students are willing to do the same jobs as those few American technical graduates for a fraction of the price. The United States is riding a technological edge gleaned from communist-defeating policies of massive government spending in hard sciences. Perhaps if the government would decide that the best way to counter terrorism and spread democracy was through education rather than hand-to-hand nation building, and that leading is best done in the forefront by example, American graduates might not be as tempted by work overseas. And the president would not have to interrupt vacation time to put thought into an American Competitiveness Initiative (as in the 2006 State of the Union address). And the American public would not be in danger of having some of the fundamental pillars of their advanced economy eroding from under them one expensive degree in basket weaving at a time.

News articles- from the New York Times to Physics Today- and statistics paint a less than pastoral scene for the future of American technology. What drives home the point for me personally is the box on my course evaluation forms asking if the TA is a native English speaker; the fact that I have been informed that as an engineer of the emerging generation I am a valuable commodity from a diminishing pool; the fact that outsourced labor is most easily done at a white-collar level.

So where are statistics tying the massive government-driven science initiatives of the 1960s to the 1980s to hippies sobering up and getting into hard science and technology? Where are the statistics that would prove that if the government did fund education that the people would actually want to learn? Where would an undergrad of moderate resources find these statistics, and not just have lying figures and stretched-thin links and assumptions to make a paper seem to work?

United States census information and statistics cited in topic articles would be a primary source of information, but really…

This undertaking seems a bit extreme for a rookie. I have learned that I tend to go off half-cocked, and regardless of the veracity of an argument, coercing others onto a bandwagon without the proper data would be one heck of a task.

Discrimination in the United States military:

Not in quite the same way as I stated previously.

When a government holds its employees to a standard above that of the average civilian, it is accepted as a proud tradition of honor. When a government combines those standards with legally binding codes that are so restrictive as to limit free entry of qualified persons, it is a detriment to that government. When a government proclaims itself a leader of freedom and democracy while barring the outspoken and silencing those who would serve anyway- it is a dishonor to the ideas it preaches. When those who swear to uphold the ideals of the United States Constitution, who are willing to give up their lives in the service of something greater than themselves are dishonorably discharged for benign honesty, there is a hypocrisy that is repugnant to anyone who would say that America is free.

Why do the people support a government that denies soldiers the same rights that the people have demanded and won? I am working towards a commission into the world’s greatest air force. I have read parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and I see more of the military than I would sometimes like to.

I would like to read and understand the entirety of the UCMJ as it pertains to barring otherwise applicable candidates from service. I would like to read and understand the legislation behind these practices. I would like to understand, although I don’t believe that I (or anyone else) ever will, the source of fear that breeds hate.

I will read any and all legal shenanigans that I must to accomplish this.

I have again found that I tend to go off in all directions without much direction. I have no idea what I am doing.

Privatization of American Infrastructure: Aesthetics aside- maybe this isn’t really a risk at all…

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) owns, and is thus responsible for, only a small majority of the infrastructure of Pennsylvania. Many of Pennsylvania’s bridges, tunnels, roads, highways, ect. are owned, operated, and maintained by local governments. The idea to take the process one step further and simply privatize infrastructure isn’t a very far or illogical jump. With budgeting always a concern, and office-winning political issues channeling funds into other projects, the money to keep infrastructure properly maintained isn’t always there. Construction projects are very expensive and very unpopular (when was the last time you were happy about being held up in traffic); selling the problem would make fast cash and eliminate a logistical issue at the same time.

This could easily turn into a project on the interplay between economics and governmental systems: I would like to know if other states and/or nations have privatized infrastructure, and how it played out. It would be interesting to explore how private handling of generally public facilities in various forums changes the relationship between owner and user. I would like to find out if the recent move to heavily contracting to private corporations is working better for the U.S. military than using in-house labor.

I have no idea where I would find any of this information.

And I just crossed an idea off my list. I have no idea where I would gather data sufficient for a project. Also, upon further reflection, I don’t actually think that this is even a risk; it might be very good for our roads.

When I began this  project I was torn between three issues that I saw as risks in contemporary American society…

Decline of technical higher education in the United States: Because math and sciences are underfunded and underemphasized in the U.S., there has been a severe decline of American students graduating with higher level degrees in technical majors. This isn’t great for the American economy and/or undergrads whose TAs don’t speak English.

Discrimination in the United States military: If the United States continues to not be at war, the
U.S. military needs a significantly larger traditional war fighting capacity (i.e. more bodies). There are numerous policies intact that prevent capable potential soldiers from being on the ground.

Privatization of American Infrastructure: America’s highway system is a wreck, and in Pennsylvania there has been the suggestion of selling the problem to a private party. The
Washington D.C. metro looked better without ads.

This page was created for a course in risk management and communication that I am currently taking- links to classmates blogs are posted here…

When I decided on the topic for my project, I chose an issue that I felt I could sustain a passion for throughout, and withstanding the eventual strain and boredom of, papers and assignments for the duration of the semester. And I fully expected that to be the fuel for all my writing- I was going to go set the world (or at least my limited audience) on fire with the heat of an idea expressed with the full power of my conviction.

Shortly thereafter, or at least after several comments on my vitriolic expression eclipsing my overall message, I realized that channeling frustration and anger, both for my topic and from a bad day, really wasn’t an effective way to communicate. Ire turned out papers, but it made for a poor medium for expression to any reasonable audience. I realized, unfortunately quite late, that my passion in writing would not evoke the reader’s by default- it would probably just cause dismissal and/or would erode the basis of my authority as a [fellow] rational member of society.

Most recently in my project, I have attempted to refine my target audience to mitigate the effects of my still slightly inflammatory writing. I am also attempting to filter my thoughts to a clearer, less seditious writing style. Regardless of what I think or feel, regardless of the power or plight of the issue, my writing will serve no purpose if it is not in the language of the reader.

[Immediately below is a deviant rant, I just needed to get the last of it out of my system]

A CALL TO ARMS *
*Terms and conditions apply, but we won’t ask. Just don’t tell.

INTRODUCTION: as messaged to me through Facebook“hey! how r u? umm.. i finally decided to join the Air Force, maybe u could give me advice cause i been deleting stuff that is gay.. but most of my friends on facebook r gay…”

NOW LET GO OF THE RED BALLOONS

Military action is the last stand of political initiative whose better diplomacies have failed. The problem is, the politicians who either grounded the ship or just couldn’t get it back in safe water aren’t actually dying for their cause. I believe in this. The government in a democracy is servant to the will of the people, and the people in turn defend the policies of their government. Every nationalistic, magnetic-ribbon posting citizen of Americanistan should be willing to stand up volunteer their life for the nation that allows them to die in a foreign country.

Or they should be lobbying to get someone else in office.

So not everyone wants to serve- I can swallow the bile off my patriotic fervor and take that. Isn’t it strange though, when a government enforces the will of the general populace over those proud few who are willing to die for it? Shouldn’t these loyal servants be given a venerated status- especially when not all would join- for their inclination to act in the belief of something bigger than themselves?

Every person who enjoys the privilege of being a citizen of the United States, one of the greatest nations in the world, should be ashamed. Whether citizen or soldier, whether fighting for or fighting alongside, there are people who would sacrifice their lives for a country that will not allow them the same freedom that they are ensuring for others.

This isn’t just for those soldiers. This is for the self respect of a nation that calls itself free.