‘Killer’ robots can save lives

July 21, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

The MARCbot has been used to kill,
but don't forget it saves lives too.

When Micah Xavier Johnson opened fire on police in Dallas after what had been a peaceful protest, killing five officers, he created a night that would live in infamy for many years to come. Aside from his planned assassination of police officers and intent to further widen his terrorist activity, it’s the method of how he was killed that will probably have the longest-lasting impact. 

As most people know, Johnson was killed by a bomb delivered to him by a remote-controlled robot.

This is the first time in American history that a robot has been used to kill a person on U.S. soil. It sets a precedent and will probably serve as the go-to case when it comes to using robots to kill in the future.

Sure, robots have been used for years by police forces, mostly for diffusing or removing bombs without putting human lives at risk. They’ve also been used, like drones, for surveillance of suspects.

The use of a robot to kill someone, though, has many people truly frightened.

“Agents of the state decided to kill a suspect on the scene without a trial and at a distance when perhaps other options were available,” says Sean Illing, Salon staff writer and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. “A death-dealing robot is a weapon of war, not law enforcement.”

There is some truth to that. The robot used by Dallas Police, believed to be a MARCbot, has been already been used in Iraq to achieve similar goals. In Iraq, jury-rigged MARCbots were used to deliver Claymore anti-personnel mines into potential ambushes.

Of course, blowing up said robot costs thousands of dollars. A price that the military can absorb with little issue. Your typical police station not-so-much, which means that they would probably only be used in such a fashion when the need calls for it.

Cost aside though, is this something we should be afraid of? Will it kick off an era where the police and the military are nearly indistinguishable?

I don’t think so.

Think about it: Robotic and drone technology is taking off. It was recently reported that Rolls Royce is planning to have its entire cargo fleet operated by drone technology by 2020. Jaguar is creating a fleet of 100 semi-autonomous Land Rovers over the next four years for experimental purposes. In the coming years, we can probably expect news of more transporters getting on board with that, eventually making most of the shipping in the developed world done by drones.

Moving forward with this technology, there’s many opportunities to apply robotic and drone to officer safety and in turn, public safety.

Imagine in the near future, that instead of a police officer coming to your window during a traffic stop, you are greeted by a hovering drone. The drone, which would likely be deployed from where the officer’s trunk space is now, would likely be capable of either scanning your license, insurance and registration or simply carrying the documents back to the officer. 

On its face, some people might dismiss that as a waste. Why buy expensive drones when a human being can do the job?

Why? Because traffic stops are often the most dangerous situations for both police and civilians. Setting aside all the accident-related fatalities from traffic stops, like police being hit by cars, more police were killed intentionally during traffic stops than any other situation in 2015.

Not only is the officer putting themselves in danger by going into what is often an unknown situation, but the civilian is also at risk, as we have unfortunately found in past cases. Some people who don’t know better get out of their car and approach the officer, others can make a movement that can be misinterpreted, especially in an already tense situation.

Applying robotic and drone technology to this situation can save lives. Eliminating those moments when an officer enters a situation blind also reduces the chances an officer, or civilian, will be killed in them.

This is just one of the many potential ways robotic and drone technology could be used to save lives. But whatever the application, it’s about keeping one side out of harm’s way.

Similarly to the delivery of a bomb in Dallas, a drone could probably be adapted to non-lethal means of neutralizing potentially bad situations. Whether it be stunning suspects with Tasers or deploying tear gas in riot or hostage situations, robots and drones are highly adaptable depending on the need.

But of course, like Dallas, the technology could be adapted to kill. When there’s an active shooter, a drone of some sort, armed with a gun, could be used to take out the perpetrator without officers getting into the line of fire. While this is troublesome for many people, we got to remember that we’re often talking about people who have the intent of killing as many people as possible.

But all of this is probably quite a few years away. Between now and then, will be the time it’s developed and the discussion of the moral and legal issues are discussed.

For now, robots and drones are already a part of policing in the U.S. They are mainly used for surveillance and searches. Unlike a human, a drone can be deployed into the air within minutes and get closer to the subjects. Whether it be accidents or suspects on the lose, a drone just allows the authorities to get a closer look with relatively little risk to themselves. Since they come in a variety of shapes and sizes, not to mention some can hover, they’re excellent tools for observation.

And don’t forget, robots have been serving for years when it comes to not only surveillance, but protecting people from bombs as well.

It all may violate Isaac Aasimov’s rules of robotics, but reality is not as morally cut-and-dry like fiction. If you look at it from my perspective, the use of robots in war and policing have probably kept more people from dying than if they weren’t available. Its continued use will probably continue cut the human toll in unfortunate conflicts in decades to come, whether it be through law enforcement or the military.

Who are citizen journalists?

By Joseph Price • July 8, 2016

Citizen journalism encompasses a broad scope,
 both positive and negative.

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

Over the last decade or so we’ve heard a lot about citizen journalists.

Now, it’s a term that should really be simple. I’m a citizen and earn my living by reporting news from the community, state and country in which I live. That should qualify me and the broad swath of people who work on local, state and national newspapers, magazines and TV channels as “citizen journalists.”

But, with the onset of the internet, it seems to have taken a new meaning.

According to the definition on Wikipedia, which we all know to be a reliable source, a citizen journalist is someone “playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information.”

Journalism professor Jay Rosen further expands that by adding “when the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another, that’s citizen journalism.”

Now, that actually sounds like amateur journalism to me, since many of them are not making a living as journalists or work in the journalism field. But, there’s nothing wrong with that.

After all, what we call citizen journalism today has been central to breaking news all over the world or giving us a fuller picture of events, often where professional journalists cannot get or were simply unaware of. It’s citizen journalists that brought us the images from the protests that led to the overthrow of the Egyptian government, footage of the destruction caused by ISIS upon ancient landmarks in Iraq and the torture of animals at the Yulin Dog Meat Festival in China. Thousands of images generated by your everyday nonjournalists have been key to informing people and getting them to act.

A lot of amateur journalists put their lives at risk and face social ostracization for getting information out to the rest of the world. In turn, they’ve become key to getting breaking stories out or grabbing the attention of the wider press and public.

They’re journalists, even though they may not do it for a living. “Amateur” after all doesn’t mean “wannabe” or “unskilled.” It just means they’re usually people who don’t make a living at it. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a role.

But on the other hand, there are a crop of people who call themselves “citizen journalists” who really don’t do any of that. Instead, you’ll find a lot of so-called journalists trying to pass opinion off as news. Many times, they don’t even bother doing their own reporting, relying on snippets borrowed from articles wrote by journalists to sprinkle within their own opinion pieces, under the guise of “analysis.” 

That’s not unknown in the internet age. But, akin to passing a secret around an arena full of people, the truth gets lost in a lot of noise and the internet is the largest arena there is.

Case in point, the recently bankrupt Gawker which thrived on that sort “citizen journalism.”

Particularly, its Gawker Stalker feature, which existed on the page in the mid-to-late 2000s.

Gawker Stalker was a weekly roundup of celebrity sightings in New York. Instead of using traditional gossip or celebrity reporters, Gawker relied on its readers, usually through messages by text from cellphones. Gawker Stalker was frequently updated, and the sightings were displayed on a map. Although it wasn’t in “real time” feature, it sparked criticism from celebrities and publicists for encouraging stalking.

It all culminated with a confrontation between then-Gawker Editor Emily Gould and Jimmy Kimmel, host of “Live With Jimmy Kimmel.” 

Kimmel claimed Gawker posted information that could potentially assist real stalkers, adding that the website could ultimately be responsible for someone’s death.

But one of the nastier things Gawker Stalker allowed for was speculation and insinuation. One poster had said that Kimmel himself “looked intoxicated” in a sighting, in which he was returning from a child’s birthday party. 

Kimmel brought this potential libelous remark up, which Gould actually defended. 

“There’s a whole other aspect of our website that doesn’t have anything to do with the Stalker Map,” Gould told Kimmel. “But what the Stalker Map is citizen journalism. People don’t read with the expectation that every word of it will be gospel. Everyone who reads it knows that it isn’t checked at all.”

Not too terribly long after, Gawker Stalker’s map function disappeared and now the link just leads to a celebrity news page.

That interview pretty much sums up my problem with this version of so-called “citizen journalists.” They aren’t professional, they don’t answer to anyone and they often don’t have an obligation to be fair. There’s no accountability and there’s no “extra layer” between them and the page, which editors of varying stations usually provide. That’s why professional journalism is also called “collaborative journalism.”

In collaborative journalism, you have a newsroom and more than one person working to make sure the product is as factual and as fair as it can be. There are varying levels of knowledge and experience, but the collaboration brings that together, usually between editors, reporters and citizen journalists.

Often, with many of those who call themselves “citizen journalists” there is no obligation or motivation to be fair. Their idea of analyzing is often peppering a story with insinuation and speculation, usually in favor of their own biases. Sure, there are fans of this, look at the success of sites like Gawker, the Huffington Post and The Blaze, but do those sites really help people make informed opinions? Are they trustworthy enough to give a person a broad enough view of the subject at hand? Usually not; their goal is to get hits on social media, not inform.

As journalists, we know it’s our job to inform you. With the information we gather and analyze, the hopes are you’ll have informed opinions and make informed choices, at least learn something. In order to do that properly, we have to be fair and set our personal opinions, and often feelings, aside. Sometimes it’s difficult, but we do our best.

Plus, we need you to keep coming back, which means gaining your trust. Our livelihood depends on it. We are professionals after all.

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter.

Monthly Mixtape: Faith No More

Faith No More's Sol Invictus lineup. From left: Jon Hudson,
Billy Gould, Mike Patton, Mike Bordin and Roddy Bottum.

So, this is the first in a monthly feature I’m essentially doing for the fun of it, which I call the “Monthly Mixtape.” And yes, I know that nobody has used tape in a while. Anyway, with “Monthly Mixtape,” I’m going to pick a certain number of songs which are personal favorites and which I feel encompass a band’s output. This month, I’ll be focusing on Faith No More.

As most people who knew me as a teenager could verify, one of my favorite bands, if not the favorite was Faith No More. Of course, I wasn’t alone. When the single “Epic” hit MTV in 1990, millions of us were hooked on its blend of heavy metal and rap. That single would launch Faith No More’s third album, The Real Thing, into the Billboard Top 200, eventually topping out an No. 11.

The band would go on to have less commercial success in its following, but more experimental, albums. The Real Thing’s successor, 1992’s Angel Dust is considered one of the most influential albums of all time now. Following two more albums, 1995’s King For a Day, Fool For a Lifetime and 1997’s Album of the Year, the band parted ways.

Faith No More’s Album of the Year lineup reunited in 2009 and put out the band’s seventh album, and first one in 18 years, 2015’s Sol Invictus. Now, the band is still active and possibly working on new songs, but that hasn’t been verified.

That was a really brief history of the band, sans the Chuck Mosley era. I will probably revisit that one, choosing four or five songs, because that time of in the band’s history sticks out on its own.

So here it is, my Faith No More Mixtape. The songs are in order from where I would put them if I were putting together an album instead of going by release date or album name. 

1. “The World is Yours”

With the samples of elephants and a firing squad, this song is for me a perfect opening. Perfect because it lets you know you’re in for an experience, encompassing a roller coaster of sound, diving into dark depths and flying into weird highs. The album truly kicks into gear when the keyboards start, giving the impression of opening Pandora’s Box, which kind of sums up Faith No More’s output well.

This song is from the Angel Dust sessions, but was not included on the album.

2. “Epic”

The song that made them famous and introduced Faith No More to a the generation of kids born from the mid-70s to mid-80s who’d go on to form their own rap-metal fusion bands. Even though members of the band tried to escape this song for years, not even bothering to play it at their “final” show prior to their first breakup in 1998.

I’m pretty sure they’ve added it to their set list since they reunited and hopefully they’ve started running away from the song. It’s easy to see why it was the perfect late-80s, early-90s hit. It mixed to rising genres, heavy metal and rap, and made them both accessible to millions. If it weren’t for this song, it’s possible none of us would have heard of this band today.

3. “Ashes To Ashes”

Album of the Year was an enjoyable album, far better than a lot of the others that were being released at the time. But like KFAD-FFAL, there was just something missing. For me, the fault of both albums is that many songs never seemed to have any sort of real climax, with repeating the song’s intro or relying on Patton’s vocal stylings, to bridge the beginning and the end.

“Ashes to Ashes” is one of the exceptions as the song is tied together by one of Hudson’s few guitar solos for the band. The song is all about mood, a particularly dark one. Even though Patton writes his lyrics to be ambiguous in meaning, one gets the feeling that that they’re with a lonely person looking out the window from a dark room that they can’t leave.

4. “Midlife Crisis”

Probably the band’s most unusual and by far most experimental song. Even after 24 years, I can’t think of any other song that sounds like it. This song embodies why Angel Dust is often considered the band’s best and most influential work. Patton sounds like he is singing in the style of an early-voice synthesizing computer (Remember the Tandys?) and Bordin adds a near drone like quality to his drumming, which tie this song together.

5. “Absolute Zero”

A track that was left of the KFAD-FFAL album, it’s considered by many to be the best song from that session, which left those same people scratching their heads as to why it wasn’t included on the album. It’s aggressive like “The Gentle Art of Making Enemies,” which made it onto the Album, but it’s also more solid than that song. It’s about as straightforward as a rock song as you can get from Faith No More with an intro-riff that’s sure to get that head a banging.

6. “Motherfucker”

Admittedly, I haven’t heard much from Sol Invictus, so it’s really hard for me to pick out one from it. Maybe it’s because I haven’t listened enough times, but not much has really stood out to me yet. This is typical of FNM, whose albums always seem to require a few listens before you can get into them. Price of being experimental I suppose.

If I were to go with one that really stands out to me right now, it’s “Motherfucker,” the first single. Yeah, the title is a bit juvenile, but at the same time, it’s a really catchy song. The band sent a message choosing to release this one: We’re back, we’re together and we’re doing what we want.

7. “The Real Thing”

Probably the largest sounding song by Faith No More. By large sounding I mean that you could easily picture this song blasting throughout an arena stuffed with people. It’s also the longest song on this list, clocking in at 8:13. I chose it because it sounds like all the elements that you hear spread throughout The Real Thing album cumulates here, bringing them together on a climactic high.

8. “Last to Know”

I never hear this one mentioned in lists when people are talking about the best FNM songs. It’s kind of surprising to me because I consider it the best on the KFAD-FFAL album. It’s a slow rocker and also a moving one, giving one the feeling of being on the outside trying to look in. Trey Spruance, whom Mike Patton brought into FNM from Mr. Bungle to fill in the void left by Jim Martin, shines in his solo here on an album which he is largely overshadowed. Great capper for a night of drinking alone.

9. “Cowboy Song”

You know, it seems like FNM’s best material was often left off their albums. Case and point, the Cowboy Song. Musically, this pretty much dwarfs everything on The Real Thing, the time period in which this song was recorded. From its keyboard intro to Patton’s early Falsetto singing to Jim Martin’s shredding, this is everything during the Epic era turned up to 11. It’s great, it hits like a wall of sound.

10. “Jizzlober”

Faith No More has wrote some pretty dark songs, but “Jizzlober” may be the darkest. Starting with a sampling of what sounds like someone wading through a swamp at night, the song turns into what could be the band’s heaviest song. The subject matter is dark, apparently about Patton’s fear of going to prison, and the music does its best to dig an even darker hole. The music is akin to taking an aural beating, it’s relentless and unforgiving, dragging you along with Patton into his nightmare, eventually ending in organ music, something one could interpret as finally waking up in the morning.

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter.

Hubble made space beautiful for all of us

By Joseph Price • June 29, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

The Pillars of Creation

When you look up at the sky at night, you see the moon, stars and the occasional red-beacon of a plane flying over head. But also up there, close to Earth but just out of sight are hundreds, if not thousands, of man-made satellites, man-made debris, a couple of space stations and dozens of space telescopes.

The most famous of those space telescopes, as far as Americans are concerned at least, is the Hubble Space Telescope, which has now been in orbit for 26 years. That’s longer than 33 percent of the U.S. population has been alive.

I was close to the end of seventh grade when Hubble was launched April 25, 1990. Of course, being 12, I wasn’t interested in the news too much back then, but I remember some coverage of it. Much of it due to Arsenio Hall deriding it for “taking the same picture” of some far off object which I forget the name of, that looked identical to one taken by a terrestrial telescope.

But unlike the Arsenio Hall Show, the Hubble telescope is still around.

Aside from a few issues in the beginning, particularly that with a flawed mirror, the Hubble telescope has helped turn space into something more than a few bright ambiguous lights in the sky.

Through the Hubble, we learned more about the age of the universe, that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, learned about black holes in neighboring galaxies and discovered the evidence for exoplanets around other stars.

But its biggest impact on the public has probably been its images. From the cosmic fireworks of the Tarantula Nebula to the Pillars of Creation 7,000 light years away, the universe became an amazing and beautiful place again. Now when we look at the night sky, we know there’s more up there than the white light of distant stars. Instead we can look up an imagine the millions of suns being born out of the clouds within a nebula at this moment, the terrific power of a supernova exploding and wiping out entire solar systems and galaxies colliding to become one … including our own which is on a crash course with the Andromeda Galaxy which will rock us in about 4 billion years.

It is also one of the most egalitarian projects by a space agency that I know of. Use of the telescope is open to the public, regardless of nationality or academic institution. It is accessible to amateur astronomers, who can file to use it for a few hours each cycle. It opened the door to space wide open for everyone.

And in short, it helped show us how awesome and how crowded space actually is.

With it becoming such an integral part of bringing space to the public, it’s hard to imagine that it wasn’t supposed to be up there this long.

Originally, it was expected Hubble would have a lifespan of 15 years and its last service mission was in 2009. But, showing its resilience, it continues on its mission, traveling more than 3 billion miles since it was launched almost a generation ago.

Earlier this week, NASA said that the Hubble will stay in operation for the next five years. The agency extended its contract with the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy to support its operation at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. The extension has moved the end of its operation from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2021.

But inevitably, the end will come. 

The James Webb Space Telescope is set to replace the Hubble in 2018. Where the Hubble stays in low earth orbit, about 354 miles away, the JWST will be in the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point, 932,000 miles away. A Lagrangian point is the position in orbital configuration between two large bodies is affected only by the gravity it can maintain a stable position. The L2 is on the other side of the moon, putting the JWST somewhere between Earth and Mars most of the time. Imagine what the view will be like way out there.

JWST will also operate in the infrared spectrum, which will allow it to study the earliest parts of the universe in more detail. The Hubble observes the universe in visible and ultraviolet light.

So what happens in 2021?

Well, the Hubble will stay in orbit for a while, years probably. Based on solar activity and lack of atmospheric drag a natural atmospheric reentry for Hubble will occur between 2030 and 2040. Around the time I’m 60 years old, probably. As it re-enters, most of it will burn away, leaving just a few parts surviving the fall, which will probably be into an ocean somewhere.

It’s kind of melancholic thinking about something that has been a fixture of the sky so long falling to the sky and burning into nothingness. But I guess that’s ultimately how the Earth will turn out eventually when it’s consumed by the sun as it expands into a red giant in a few billion years. Of course, one could consider that better than the big freeze which many scientist theorize will happen when all the energy generated by suns is finally exhausted.

It’s a frightening thing to contemplate and maybe that won’t be the case. Who knows what we’ll find next, it seems some new discovery changes everything we thought we knew before before on a pretty constant basis now.

For now though, instead of thinking of where everything will go, I think it’s just better to look at the sky and appreciate that there’s more than any of us will ever see out there. And what wonder is there to life if you’ve seen everything that there is to see?

Primaries test endurance, patience

By Joseph Price • June 22, 2016

You could say the worst is over.

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

General election season is upon us. Pretty soon, we’ll be bombarded by nonstop advertisements — not only from the Clinton and Trump campaigns, but also the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, state, county and municipal campaigns.

Sure, we’ll get a short break once the election is over with, but probably not for long. It seems that campaigns start earlier and earlier every cycle. This time around, we had candidates forming exploratory and political action committees as soon as November 2014 for this election.

The first official candidate for the 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz, declared his candidacy on March 23, 2015. That’s 596, or 1.6 years, before the election! That early start didn’t pay off for him as no one is bothering to talk about him since he ended his campaign in May.

Of the remaining major party candidates, Hillary Clinton has been at it the longest, declaring her candidacy for the Democratic nomination on April 12, 2015, or 436 days ago, and Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination June 16, 2015. I might as well mention Sanders because he’s not officially ended his campaign; he’s been in it since April 30, 2015.

Of the two larger, so-called minor parties, Gary Johnson declared his candidacy for the Libertarian Party on Jan. 6, 2016, and Jill Stein declared hers for the Green on June 22, 2015.

Before this action, if that’s what you want to call debates and speeches, kicked off, potential candidates were busy behind the scenes trying to round up donors and support. Our system of election still relies on money, like most other developed countries, so we’re not unique in that. What sets us apart is that we have a system that limits donation limits but not spending limits.

Of course, there are loopholes in regards to that spending, best known as Super PACS which raise and spend as much money as they want as long as they don’t give it directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate.

But that’s behind the scenes. The money exchanging and handshakes aren’t really that interesting to people, unless of course, somebody shines a light on some excess or finds contributors with some particularly interesting baggage.

I really lay a lot of blame on the broadcast media for making these election seasons feel so long. They’re holding the first of their numerous debates earlier and earlier every year. This year, Fox News kicked off the debate season on Aug. 6, 2015, with its Republican debate. There was so many candidates that they divided it into an opening act, featuring lower-polling candidates and a main event featuring the Top 10.

With 16 total candidates, it was the equivalent of a mosh pit where any new arrivals would find the circle too crowded to push their way to the spotlight, being shoved to the peripheral instead.

The Democrats were able to avoid much of this. They still had room on the stage when they held their first debate on Oct. 3, 2016, with just five candidates. Within just a couple of months, it was down to just two.

For me, the debates were one of the most excruciating parts of the process. Honestly, I’m hard-pressed to find one debate interesting enough to watch, let alone five or six. But, big media and political pundits love sound bytes and they got plenty of them by digging out a few minutes from each of these snoozers.

And finally, the big culprits are the primaries themselves. It seems that the states that are not Iowa, New Hampshire, Carolina and Nevada keep trying to one up each other for who can be earliest, though they can’t ever be scheduled before March. The earlier your primary, the more influence your state has after all.

So instead of having these primaries arranged in some orderly fashion that makes sense, they’re held on different days of the week, are sometimes caucuses, sometimes open or closed — just all over the place. All that seems to be for sure is that California is the last one for Republicans and Washington, D.C., is the last for Democrats.

After all, it’s pretty rare that you hear, “It’s down to what California decides!”

But admit it, by the time it’s over in June, you probably stopped paying attention. Your state primary was in March after all.

Personally, I’m not a fan of primaries. This year was a primary example (yuk yuk) of why that’s the case. It’s one of the examples of where I’d prefer either reform or things go back to the “good old days.”

By the “good old days” I’m referring to those smoke-filled back rooms where deals were made between party bosses or those battles on the convention floors between delegates who were actually members of the party.

Sure, the open primaries may be more democratic, but it’s become pretty obvious that often what the voters who turn out want and what party leaders want are often different.

It was not more obvious this year. The establishment by and large wanted someone that was not Donald Trump, while the people who turned out for primaries, who were not all card-carrying Republicans, did. There was a similar story with Clinton, the establishment wanted her, the primary voters made it not-so-clear cut.

So I often want to ask party leaders “if you don’t want these candidates then why do you let them run? If you’ve already got your preference, then why bother with a primary?”

Looking ahead, do we want this same endurance challenge in 2020 and 2024? Instead of this exhausting and boring primary season, can’t we just let the parties battle it out at their respective convention?

Maybe we can talk about that before the 2020 primary season starts Nov. 9.

Now isn’t that bad

By Joseph Price • June 16, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

We’re in an amazing age, that’s for sure.

Within the last 25 years, we’ve gone from communicating by letters, radio and landlines to instantaneous texts and conversations anywhere (except the valleys and the deserts) via mobile phones.

This has given us a great amount of freedom (not considering service contracts and batteries), which allows us to be able to communicate almost anywhere at any time. No longer do we have to walk to payphones or bang on strangers’ doors when our cars break down in the middle of nowhere nor do we have to wait for the evening news or morning paper to know what happened in the world. Almost everything we need to communicate and receive information is at our fingertips and we’re able to carry it around in a nice, pocket-sized wonder box aka a smartphone.

But, not everyone sees it that way.

There remains a strong current of technophobia and anti-technology sentiment in the world.

We all know at least one person. A person who believes in the “good old days” and how things were better when people entertained themselves by playing with rocks. These people condemn technology and swear to (eventually) live a life free of it. They declare that mankind has gone downhill and become dependent on technology and the next generation is missing what the world really has to offer.

And sure, there are some things to be missed.

For example, when I was younger, and also as an adult, I really liked heavy metal music. Unfortunately, the Ozarks were not the optimal place logistically to be a fan of that genre. Aside from Walmart, which sold almost only Top 40 and pop classics, there wasn’t much of anywhere to get music.

Not to mention you’d never hear any of it on the radio. Even today, it seems that most radio stations are stuck playing the same track list they were playing in 1996.

So this meant learning about new music through magazines and making special trips at least an hour away to just buy music.

It sounds frustrating, for sure. But some of my fondest memories are of those trips, mostly to Hastings in Jonesboro. They were great because we got to spend a day with our friends, socializing with other fans of the same style of music at the store. The music store culture was great.

We also had to take chances with what we bought. We didn’t have YouTube to give us a sample of the music that was on it. Sometimes sampler cassettes would be released locally at Rebel Records, but at less than 20 songs, you were pretty limited.

So most often, you’d have to rely on either reviews or the quality of the previous album to make a decision. A lot of times, you’d just go by the album’s cover art. Sometimes you’d spend $15 on a bomb you’d play once and never listen to again or you sometimes got something that you’re still listening to today.

They were great times and I wouldn’t exchange them for anything.

But, times change and the music culture has changed.

Yes, I am kind of sad that my son will miss out on a lot of the things I enjoyed in my teenage years.

On the bright side, if he wants to hear a new band, he no longer has to spend $5 on a magazine to read a music review or take the risk of losing $15 on a bad CD. Now he can get online and go to any number of sites and listen to a few samples. He doesn’t even have to leave the house to buy the CD. He can order it, receiving it in just a couple of days, or download it, being able to carry it around on his wonder box.

Sure, he may not have the hangout that was the music store, but he’ll have the ability to communicate with millions of people, across the globe. There are countless forums, social media groups and websites that’ll put him in connection with people who share the same interest right away.

It’s that communication ability that has been one of the real boons of this age. Before the advent of the internet, the rest of the world was a far away place for most people. We knew about it, but most of us didn’t interact with it or the people there unless we were willing to make the effort to write a letter every week or pay for long-distance phone calls.

The kids coming up now, many of them are growing up with a world perspective. It’s nothing to them to have local friends that they hang out with at school during the day and then come home and communicate with friends on the other side of the world. 

Kids today have a different sense of place than many of us did. We grew up waiting to see the world, the kids today are growing up seeing themselves as citizens of it. Sure, they’re still American and other nationalities, but a new borderless layer has been added to that. They can now link up with people in other countries who have similar beliefs, interests and experiences — bonds that can be tighter than simply being born in a geographical spot.

Of course, there’s many people who believe that’s a bad thing. Go online and you’ll have no trouble finding people who live in fear of a world government, promoting any number of conspiracy theories about people behind the curtain trying to destroy all borders and convert the world to a police state. 

There’s a kernel of truth to that sort of talk; that’s why it thrives. But, maybe they should think about our future with technology instead of outright ditching it. I’m sure many people will disagree, though, and they’ll voice their opinion via a post on Facebook.

Churchill didn’t say that

By Joseph Price • June 2, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

"I said what?"

It’s a pet peeve of mine: Misattributed quotes.

The most common example of this I have seen is the misattribution of the following quote to Winston Churchill:

“If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”

According to the Churchill Centre, which was founded in 1968 and dedicated to preserving the historic legacy of Sir Winston Churchill, there is no record of Churchill ever saying such a thing — written, heard or otherwise.

That’s easily found out when someone takes a few seconds to do some online fact checking. But that pesky human trait of confirmation bias always seems to get in the way. 

It’s understandable. Churchill has gone down in history as one of the 20th century’s greatest wartime political leaders. He’s got semi-divine status as far as politics goes, so his issuing such a statement gives validation for many people. 

Of course, the reality is that Churchill was like most people — he held a mixed-bag of views, both liberal and conservative. According to historian John Luckas, Churchill was a “statesman and not an ideologue.” 

Churchill is not the only figure to be incorrectly attributed with this quote. It has also been borrowed by or attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Georges Clemenceau, Otto von Bismarck, Aristide Briand, Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Wendell Willkie and William J. Casey, to name a few.

The earliest evidence for this particular quote goes back to 1875 and originates with the French in a book by Jules Claretie in a section where he quoted jurist and academic Anselme Polycarpe Batbie.

The quote goes:

Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit.

In English it translates to: 

“He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”

Batbie was allegedly speaking of something called the “Burke Paradox.” The name comes from Sir Edmund Burke, a British statesman, who was known as a supporter of the American Revolution but took an opposite view of the French Revolution.

Of course, there’s even a conflict with attributing to Batbie as François Pierre Guillaume Guizot, a French statesman and historian, is also attributed with the original quote about républicains.

By “republican” the quote is referring to anti-monarchists, who overthrew and executed the French Monarchy during that country’s revolution that lasted from 1789 to 1799. The bloody mess terrified the rest of Europe, especially the monarchs, for decades to come.

If taken in that context, the quote itself doesn’t seem to apply to modern ideology at all. After all, the French and American republicans, who were inspired by Enlightenment ideals, shared the same core goal of throwing off the yoke of monarchies because of taxes and perceived oppression. The legacy of those revolutions is still claimed by people of all political stripes in both countries today.

So taking this into account, it doesn’t sound like it is really meant to apply to the narrow “liberal versus conservative” debate that defines American politics.

So what does it really mean?

It’s difficult to ascertain considering both alleged original authors have been long dead, as has Burke. But it sounds like it’s speaking of radicalism. Young people who are politically active from the first are expected to be idealistic and unwavering while older people are expected to be more skeptical and pragmatic. We have seen this pattern repeated throughout history. It doesn’t mean that radicalism is for the young and left-leaning; we’ve also seen the same unbending idealism from many who are older and right-leaning. Radicalism doesn’t have a political preference.

When put into that context, it sounds as if they’re expected to become more moderate in regards to pursuing their political objectives.

Which makes sense, at least to me. The unwillingness to iron out differences and make deals doesn’t result in much getting done in politics. This is generally accepted by most people with a sigh and shaking of the head in times that aren’t so bad. Life is

able to go on, after all.

But when times are bad, which is to say people starving on the streets, citizens fear secret police and when significant numbers of people feel powerless — that is when radicals begin gaining traction. One only has to look at the French Revolution itself, Germany post-World War I and the Russian Revolution for examples of this. And often, in that situation, the cure can be almost as bad, if not worse, than the disease. 

That’s just my perception of it and that doesn’t make it a fact. I can’t really say what a guy who spoke a different language and that’s been dead more than a century meant. It could just mean that républicains are just républicains and nothing more.