I've been unequivocal in my dislike of public surveillance. Among the many things wrong with the practice is the way it plays to the American prediliction for the "quick fix." More bothersome is the inherent implication of a camera in a public (or private) space: Behave normally. Do nothing subversive. You are being evaluated.

This makes me want to behave in ways that are subversive. Turns out I'm not alone. Maybe you've heard of the guerilla theater group Surveillance Camera Players, activists who perform street theater for the glass eye. Totally brilliant. The link above takes you to the "How-To" section of their Webpage.

Their primary technique employs signboards in quick silent plays, making a statement both for the camera operators and for passers-by who are reminded that their daily lives are being increasingly monitored. It's better than it sounds. For example, the camera outside Manhattan's St. Patrick's Cathedral inspired the group to perform "God's Eyes Here on Earth." Why are there surveillance cameras at the church?, they ask. Doesn't God see everything?

Using the power of art to reassert our freedom over social control is such a positive response, because the built-in amusement value of the process counteracts the tendency for political activism to become spirit-crushingly serious.

Off the Record

Regular Salon readers know that Clear Channel and a few other media giants have snapped up nearly every radio station in the country. But we knew something was wrong anyway when the differences between radio stations began to dissolve. A major factor in the ruination of radio consists of the independent middlemen who broker cash to stations for airplay of the bands and labels they represent. So we're glad to hear that Cox Radio has stepped up to the plate by announcing that they are no longer accepting promoters' fees. According to Cox CEO Robert Neil:

"It's not worth it to sacrifice your ethics for that bit of money. This is a way to show you're going to be responsible in a world where people sometimes aren't responsible."

Death to Smiley

The Raven will not be "celebrating" the 20th birthday of the emoticon. These things should never have entered the print medium in the first place. Turns out the cuprit has finally been tracked down. Back in 1982, Carnegie Mellon's Scott Fahlman created the first smiley in an e-mail he sent to a colleague. Last week, archivists finally unearthed the accursed missive that unleashed the horror upon a wired world:

"I propose the following character sequence for joke markers: :-). Read it sideways. Actually, it is probably more economical to mark things that are NOT jokes, given current trends. For this, use :-(."

She may want to investigate something called "adjectives" and "adverbs." Do I sound grumpy? Probably. But good expression is tough enough without having to unthread the embedded meaning in communicative statements like:

• You should be taken out and shot :-)
  
• We aren't returning your daughter until we're finished with her :-)
  
• There is a bomb planted somewhere in your office :-)
  
• Your test results for leukemia are positive :-)

Far from "giving meaning" to words, the smiley in all of its brazen incarnations degrades intelligibility and introduces considerable anxiety on the part of the reader. Join me in wishing the smiley a swift and ignominious demise.

10:47:10 AM