Long Sunday

"There's never been a paper bag for drugs. Until now." Or, What Is "Real Police Work"?

        (The following is by guest post author Rodney Herring, an assistant instructor in English and Rhetoric, whose weblog may be found here.)

What's up with the title The Wire? I mean, having a wire up provides the detectives with a kind of talismanic assurance, and the capacity to surveil their "targets" is fundamental to the Major Crime Unit's operations. Still, doesn't the title reflect an almost unsupported (and unearned) privileging of the police? The series is nearly unique and certainly daring in showing the ineptitude of the police, sometimes from external forces and sometimes from individual incompetence or corruption, so it's not particularly pro-BPD. Moreover, many of the episodes involve no wire at all, and plotlines such as the atrophy of the Baltimore port, the Stringer/Avon business/gangster showdown, and the Hopkins study of Tilghman Middle School all proceed smoothly with or without a wire. And yet, the show is called The Wire. Why?

That's one of the questions that has been on my mind since I began watching the series. Another has to do with what is far and away the most common evaluation I hear: "The Wire is the best television show. Ever." A couple of friends have muttered this dispassionately and a bit wearily, as though they've come to the conclusion (which they should have all along recognized as unavoidable) only after sustaining vigorous disputation from other fans. (One friend tried to sell the show to me by saying, "It's like Deadwood, but more relevant." Hmm.) In any case, at a certain point, I began to wonder about these people's judgments. Although I can't find any reason to say they're wrong, something still bothered me.

That point and that something roughly coincide with the end of Season 3. But I probably should have seen it coming, at least as early as this moment in All Due Respect (3.2):

The Enemy Among Us

In our "Post 9/11" world, the enemy is diffuse, using our "freedoms" against us in order to threaten our safety and undermine our way of life.  This is why the New York Times must be stopped!

Last Men, or the phenomenology of the camp

Just a link to some video,  found at American Samizdat.   And following on from here.  Update:  um, alright.  Who says we have to let them vote?  In an entirely more frivolous vein (or sinister, depending on how you look at it...and not that we'd ever want to become that kind of blog, heavens forbid!) here's the Fema Rap For Kids (courtesy of Mefi).  More on Katrina from a rhetoric/discourse-analysis tack here.

And on yet another note, some congratulations to Baghdad Burning are in order.

The web we're on

Tice says the technology exists to track and sort through every domestic and international phone call as they are switched through centers, such as one in New York, and to search for key words or phrases that a terrorist might use...
President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants.
But Tice [former NSA insider] disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.  "That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.

Today via The Volokh's, who also raise a few questions about the wisdom of that whole e-annoyance law thing from 50-odd posts ago:

This potentially criminalizes any anonymous speech on a Web site that's intended to annoy at least some readers, even if it's also intended to inform other readers.  This is true whether the poster is berating a government official, a religious figure, a company that he thinks provides bad service, an academic who he thinks is doing or saying something misguided, a sports figure who he thinks is misbehaving, or what have you; so long as he's trying to annoy any recipient (whether the target, if the poster thinks the target is reading the blog, or the target's partisans or fans).

How is this different from traditional telephone harassment law? The trouble is that the change extends traditional telephone harassment law from a basically one-to-one medium (phone calls) to include a one-to-many medium (Web sites).

This is a big change. One-to-one speech that's intended to annoy the one recipient is rarely of very much First Amendment value; people are just rarely persuaded or enlightened by speech that's intended to annoy them. It has some value (see item 3 below), but to the extent that it's in some measure deterred, the loss to public debate isn't that great — speakers are still free to speak to others besides the person they're trying to annoy.

But one-to-many speech that is intended to annoy one or a few readers, but intended and likely to enlighten or persuade many other readers, is potentially much more valuable.

Update:  Then again, maybe not such a  big deal you gullible little bloggers, you.  More blog-able items of this sort beneath the fold:

We should really have a category called "military-industrial and surveillance"

William Davies has an extraordinary, timely article at the fantastic Open Democracy website:  The age of surveillance:  a new "dotcom boom"?  (thanks be, once again, to wood s lot).  Myself, I have nothing daringly neutral or witty to say about it.  But maybe I'll think of something later.  Read the whole thing; there are funny comments about "bedfellows."  Here's an excerpt:

The most important lesson that marketers and futurologists can learn about new technologies is not to extrapolate too far from the “early adopters”. Be it cars, telephones, televisions or computers, the long-term implications of new tools are never apparent at the outset, but only emerge once they have become ubiquitous across society.

(By the way, I'm personally very pleased that this blog does not have a category called, "Culture War."  And *not* because I deny that such a term exists.  Being careful about the words one chooses to dignify, such as through uncareful repetition is, "in my book", by no means an unimportant task.  Nay, duty.)