A Short Review of Digitally Inclined 

    For the past few weeks the Student Union has been hosting an art exhibit titled “Digitally Inclined,” hosted by the Digital Art Mob.  The show brings together a diverse collection of visual, video, and interactive artworks by 23 UNCC students.  For each work an information label details how the piece was made: what equipment, software, and procedures were used to produce it, specifically in regards to its digital aspects.  Yet for all the priority given to technique, the significance of it remains puzzling. 

    Even though the works make use of digital techniques, there is nothing about them that warrants being presented solely in these terms.  With the exception of Yanting Zheng’s interactive Flash animations, none of the works possess a form that is unique to digital media—photography, film, photomontage, and stop motion animations have all been around for quite a while.  There is an implicit assumption that there is something significantly innovative about the methods being used, something that makes them better or sets them apart from traditional practices.  But the failure to engage in this reflection results in a severely underdeveloped theme that encourages viewers to merely enter the room, see the wonderful art, and give thanks to the technology that made it possible.

    Without addressing the question of how these digital incarnations measure up to their analogue predecessors, the message is simply that computers can be used to make art.  Unfortunately, this is one of the least interesting aspects of the works.  By placing total emphasis on the methods of fabrication, the exhibition foreshortens and forfeits the meanings of the works it houses, which should be seen as exceptional in their own right. 

-Ryan Shullaw

Definitions of War-
    How language is used is a critical part of discourse and argument, but it is often overlooked.  I want to help define some of the language being used when discussions of war are being held.  Specifically language of the anti-war movement, which is often misdefined and used in disingenuous ways.
    Warism - the perspective which claims war can be just in theory and in practice.  There are distinctions amongst warists, including just warism and war realism, with further distinctions within those.  It is a largely held assumption that war is a means to peace.
    Pacifism - a position which claims war is always unjust and morally wrong, and peaceful resolutions to conflicts should be pursued.  Distinct from passivism, the word pacifism means to make peace.  This can be accomplished using various civil disobedience tactics, diplomacy, solidarity, amongst other ways.  Pacifists also work toward eradicating injustice from society.  Like warism, pacifism has many distinctions such as deontological pacifism and consequentialist pacifism.
    Peace - many make a distinction between negative and positive peace.  The former being a society where war is absent, but injustice is still present within society.  The latter being when war is absent, and injustice is actively sought out in order to stop it.  Pacifists work for positive peace.
    Just-War Theory - a set of criteria which set limits to when and if war should occur.
        Just Cause - the reasons for war must be morally and practically justifiable.  Common refrains to meet this criterion are: defense against an aggressor, defense of an ally from aggression, or when crimes preventing peace and causing injustice are perpetrated on peoples. 
        Right Authority - this criterion stipulates that the decision to go to war has been made legally by the people designated to make such a decision.  In a democracy, this power presumably should be held by the people, or by their representatives.
        Right Intention - the war must be carried out according to its justifiable causes.  Ulterior or secret motives would be wrong intention for fighting in a war.
        Last Resort - this simply states that war must be averted unless it has become absolutely necessary for the existence of the state.  This means to exhaust all possible diplomacy and other peaceful tactics.
        Likelihood of Emergent Peace - war should be entered with a good chance that peace will be a very likely result of the war.
        Proportionality - this refers to the fighting within the war.  A state at war must kill the enemy in a proportionate manner.  This rules out genocide, massacres, and large-scale civilian murder as justifiable tactics in a war.  It limits what a warring state can do in regards to total war.

Further information about each of these ideas can be found online, and in Cady’s book From Warism to Pacifism: A Moral Continuum.

           -Eric Virzi

Blackwater/Xe/Paravant, and Eric Cartman
    Blackwater, now known as Xe Services, began as a training facility for military and law enforcement organizations in 1990. By 2002, Blackwater had grown into a private security firm which the US government contracted for the war in Afghanistan. Since entering the war alongside US troops, Blackwater has been under constant scrutiny. One of the most notable events occurred on September 17, 2007 when Blackwater contractors operating in Iraq opened fire in Nisour Square leaving 17 dead and 20 more wounded.
    The Blackwater convoy of four vehicles was documented entering the intersection and immediately turning the wrong way down a one-way street. Blackwater guards opened fire in a “random” fashion according to an Iraqi policeman, killing a 20 year old man who was driving the correct way down the street with his mother in the passenger seat. The mother began screaming hysterically as she held her son’s head which was “destroyed” according to the officer. The car continued to drift toward the Blackwater convoy, and the surrounding patrons signaled to the contractors in an effort to get them to stop shooting. It is at this point that the contractors opened heavy fire in the intersection. After all the dust settled 15 cars had been destroyed, and a number of children, mothers, and hospital workers had been killed. One Iraqi was quoted saying Blackwater forces “gestured stop, so we all stopped... It’s a secure area, so we thought it will be the usual; we would stop for a bit as convoys pass. Shortly after that they opened heavy fire randomly at the cars with no exception.” Of all the witnesses of the event, including a pharmacist, lawyer, and multiple Iraqi policemen, not a single shot was documented as being fired towards the contractors, and US inspectors found no evidence of gunfire on the Blackwater vehicles.
    The Blackwater operatives who were involved with this occurrence and other multiple incidents perpetrated by Blackwater operatives have largely gone unpunished.  Unlike US military personnel who typically would be tried in military court for similar unwarranted actions, Blackwater contractors have notoriously been “sent home” as punishment.  Due to contractual agreements, Blackwater contractors are exempt from Iraqi law, and since they are not actually a sector of the US military, they have found themselves exempt from US military law.  Multiple attempts to convict the Blackwater contractors associated with various crimes have largely been thrown out of court, and many other incidents have typically had their significance downplayed.
    This past month, Iraq ordered all private security guards associated with Blackwater to leave the country.  This included the Blackwater contractors who had left Blackwater for the numerous other military contractors stationed in Iraq.  More notably, Blackwater, which rebranded itself Xe Services to get away from negative associations with the Blackwater name, created a shell company called Paravant to operate through Raytheon, a weapons system company.  Senate investigations into Paravant have discovered that many of the issues associated with Blackwater yesterday are happening with Paravant today.  The most recent of these publicized events was the unauthorized distribution of Afghan National Police assault rifles from a contractor who signed his name as “Eric Cartman”.
    The issues surrounding Blackwater have been ongoing since it received its first military contract with the US.  Other military contractors have profited heavily off the war as well, but Blackwater has been the leader and pioneer of the trend all along.  Blackwater operatives are among some of the best in the world, and most should be commended for what they do.  Furthermore, private military contractors can be seen as a way to reduce the number of recruits needed for the US military.
    Unfortunately, the benefits may not outweigh the costs.  Privatized military contractors typically make much more than their military counterparts, causing those who may be up for reenlistment to opt out of their military contract for a private military contract, thus costing the US government more money for the same service.  Furthermore, the negative actions of Blackwater and other private military contractors have drawn very negative views of the US personnel operating in the Middle East.  For example, the Nisour Square incident sparked increased hatred and distrust of the US forces in Iraq, resulting in increased anger toward US Army and Marine troops in the region.  Privatization is usually a great way to get the best out of a select service/product, and in the case of Blackwater it is no different. But it is far easier to excel when the rules which apply to everyone do not apply to you, and punishment is unseen and unrecognized.

             -Kyle Broflovski

Absurd Images of Violence-
    It is often thought by many that the American people are desensitized and numb toward the images of violence which are encountered everyday.  This argument is made by referring to the emotional reaction an individual has when viewing an image of violence.  Superficially looking at people while they view images of violence will lead one to think the American people are numb to violence.  But a closer look at the nature of these images is needed to fully understand an individual’s reaction to them.  I think, rather than numbness, a person’s unemotional reaction to an image of violence is due to the absurd nature of the images.
    Photography, presumably the most realistic representation of reality, began in the nineteenth century.  The technology of photography allowed images to be taken of the American Civil War somewhat readily.  Quite suddenly, images of violence and death were being published in newspapers around the world and in America.  What once was an ambiguous abstraction for people who never had direct experience, war quickly formed into a solid reality in people’s minds.  People in America living through the Civil War where all effected greatly, and generally could not escape feeling a logical and emotional connection to the images being published.  The new technology brought a great change in how people could perceive reality, thus it brought about a great emotional reaction when an individual viewed an image of violence.
    Another great change in how people formulated reality came with television.  The first major impact of violence and war on television came with the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s.  Television offered a “higher” sense of reality to individuals, so instead of single frame still-shots, moving video became the main perspective of a reality which was once distant from the individual.  Partly because the Vietnam War effected so many domestically, realistic images of war which came into American homes once again sparked a great emotional reaction.
    In American culture today, each individual is over-saturated with images of violence and war.  Yet, most Americans feel no impact from any of the images.  Is that because Americans have become numb and desensitized to these images, or is it something different?  Do unaffected individuals view images of violence differently than those who are directly affected by them?  This is where I think a distinction needs to be made.  Rather then having the logical and emotional connection to the people or events being represented by the images, the people or events remain distant and illogical in relation to the viewer’s life.  Instead of a new media which proffers a “higher” sense of reality which would create a more sympathetic potential within individuals, the old types of media remain.  This leaves people static in their interpretation of events and leaves the images as absurd representations of illogical and distant phenomena. 
    So, instead of claiming people are desensitized and numb to violence, I would claim people have not been offered a new way to understand reality in a deeper sense because the old media have become normalized.  Understanding also that a majority of Americans are not greatly affected by images of violence or war, leaving the events and people represented disconnected from the individual viewing the image.  The images are absurd in relation to the individual’s life, thus a weak reaction is elicited to images of violence and war.  Ultimately, images of violence are not violence, they are strictly representations.
    All of this is not to say a person cannot be affected by an image of violence, it happens often.  But generally, unless a more serious look is taken past the image (meaning, finding information on the subject, so a more understanding perception can be formed), images of violence remain absurd and cast in shadow.     

         -Eric Virzi