April 18, 2001
John Q. Cynic et al.

I had dinner with an acquaintance the other night and when the topic of conversation shifted to literature and the likes, I mentioned this web site and the meditative generation of angst which the tirade evokes [and of course the state of mind of the author(s) when writing these pieces]. At this point I was shocked to find out that my dinner guest felt that such angst-wridden prose was perhaps a bit negative, or even cynical... and even worse, could be misinterpreted as pessimistic.

This week's tirade is dedicated to the investigation of optimism which masquerades as pessimism/cynicism. If the tirade sets you [dear reader] on edge with its persistent skepticism and you joust with its pointed hostility, your disagreement and/or suspicious comprehension of the issues presented might very well lead you to posit that things are not as bad as they might seem [or as the tirade might present them]; and you might even think that the author is just plain wrong. Both of these are reasonable conclusions, and both of them reinforce the need for intelligent criticism in all aspects of human life.

The trained linguist or even the perceptive reader might notice that the writing style of many of the tirades look strikingly similar, perhaps even similar to the prose seen here; in defense of anonymity [to protect the pessimists until proven optimists] the author of this piece, although not purporting to claim responsibility for their content, wishes to defend them as worthwhile and optimistic criticisms - and to defend the author(s) from detractors who may brand them skeptical, pessimistic philistines.

A famous person once said, something like, "It's easier to criticize than it is to act". And although there is truth in that attack on the critic, it must also be noted that, "It's much easier to do and say nothing than it is to offer intelligent criticism." The first statement pitches the artist/author against their detractors, while the second elevates the critic above those who offer no intelligent opinions at all [and they are legion]. The tirades presented on this web site, in all their liberal reactionary posture, offer opinions; these opinion are always pointed and always skeptical.

The reason for this dogged empiricism, is that The Weekly Tirade is an effort to stir up those members of society [or at least those members with computers that browse the digital ether] by restating current events with a much less neutral[-looking] viewpoint than the news sources which originally reported on these events. The news although masquerading as nonjudgmental and non-opinionated is nothing of the sort [Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky, Media Control], and so The Weekly Tirade [and this web site] can be viewed as a slightly less neutral [conventionally speaking], yet equally propagandistic media.

If there is any question about whether or not the mainstream media in the United States [and China] is used as propaganda, you will not have to look any farther than the recent China spy-plane incident to assure yourself that there is most definitely propaganda at work. Without any definitive information regarding who was at fault, the Chinese media blamed the United States, and the United States media blamed the Chinese. The "truth" may be accessible at some later date by examining and "interpreting" data, and interviewing witnesses [who will undoubtedly disagree along party lines] but during the initial political posturing, each nation sought to convince its citizens that the other was the guilty party. Nationalism can be a strong [and at times dangerous] sentiment.

The construction of The Weekly Tirade is also an effort to stir up the authors of the tirades themselves [I've asked them personally about this matter]. In committing an idea or an opinion in writing, the authors are developing the skills to engage and critique the world around them. It is not just enough to just listen and watch; to be an active member of society you must also ask questions; and it is the answers to such questions which must be weighed and judged and then accepted or discarded as correct or incorrect, or as misguided or insightful. The Internet has the potential to be a wonderful media for such discourse.

If the tirade stirs the reader more poignantly than the New York Times, then success is ours [architectureink.com]. If in our unswerving optimism for the capacity of the human being to reason, we have raised one reader from the slumber of their media-oppressed lives by making them bark out, "that's such bullshit!", or "I never looked at things that way", or "that author is such a pessimist", then our minor contribution to society is assured.

Until next week, sleep easy to the monotone purr of the evening news and local newspaper; perhaps [if you're lucky] you will cleverly avoid the sodium-pentathol-like trance it tries to lull you into... as surely as I am writing this tirade, I know that at some point during the next week I'll forget that all news is opinion, and then even I [in all my self-proclaimed perspicacity] will slide blissfully into a brainwashed state until my agile fingers seek out this keyboard yet again in a quiet effort to wake my weary soul [and maybe yours too].