Joseph Heath. Enlightenment 2.0

The author's well argued views can be summed up as follows. At least some of the problems of the modern society only admit highly complex and technical solutions. Yet, in the era of 24/7 news cycle and the social media, only 60 second sound bites and 150 character tweets can influence politics. This means that the public gets only simplistic and anti-intellectual view of the events and possible solutions. In Heath's view this benefits right-wingers with their highly cohesive electorate and well-oiled money machine.

This argument is entirely persuasive but factually wrong (I don't subtract from the other strengths of his book, which are nothing short of genial. Take, for instance, his observation of the propensity of American TV journalists to interview mainly other journalists or political operatives). Have you lived through McCain and Romney presidencies? I did not. Canadian Harper--the author is Toronto-based--kept himself in power by means little different from a state coup, rather than his demagoguery. Indeed he used intricacies of Imperial Era laws and Constitution to redraw electoral districts to his liking.

           The degradation of the intellect in politics is obvious--we view Dan Rather, or Bill Donahue, or even Brent Scowcroft--as relics of a bygone era, even if only the vocabulary is in question. Yet, "liberal" CNN, NYT and Washington Post are nearly as mindless, sensation-prone and abusive as Fox and WSJ. J. Heath specifically admits the role of the CNN in drastically lowering reporting standards.
            After Murdoch's takeover, the quality of writing in WSJ has subsided, but so did one in Time and Newsweek. Nobody can place 10-page New Yorker-style intellectual disquisitions in them anymore (as was the case in 1980s and 90s). Even the "Scientific American" instead of long in-depth articles by professional scientists, relies more and more on 2-3 page expositions written by editorial writers, with graphics displacing narrative content more and more.

What can I say? The Utopians of the XX Century assumed that there will be a crisis of possibilities (reduced energy consumption, food scarcity, proliferation of waste). Yet, we now observe the crisis of demand. Even a lower-middle class job in developed countries and many emerging markets now provides access to clean water, indoor plumbing, new clothes and plenty of food. An upper crust has resources comparable to mid-size nations at their disposal. This breeds complacency.

Andrew Small, Madness in Civilization

Erudite gibberish continuing his bizarre previous opus. Author--a sociologist--rants against psychiatry with his semi-medieval views and terminology, yet blaming psychiatric treatments of the past centuries with not attaining modern standards of secular humanism. There are no more "mad" people in 21 century than there are "pestilent" or "afflicted."