tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-315189752024-03-04T23:54:36.378-05:00There's a Quark in the VentEvahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-78687477217709668662011-11-16T21:52:00.009-05:002011-11-16T22:57:59.516-05:00Battle Hymn of the Tiger Country: The Story of SingaporeMy latest read was <u>From Third World to First</u>, the story of Singapore’s transformation from a developing to a developed nation. Written by Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, this book recounts his experiences governing Singapore during its rapid rise to become an <u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers">Asian Tiger</a></u>. <br /><br />In 1819, what we now call Singapore was just a small island home to a few dozen fisherman. The strategic position of the island made it attractive to the British, who absorbed the island for use as a shipping outpost. For the next 146 years, Singapore remained an outpost of the British Empire until its independence in 1965.<br /><br />Yew took the helm when Singapore became independent; he ended up ruling Singapore from 1965 to 1990. In his book, he details the struggles of the early years. With the exit of the British, Singapore had to build up its own military to protect against hostile neighbors. There was also the issue of violent race riots that threatened to split the country into Malaysian and Chinese regions. <br /><br />After getting through the rough start, Yew's focus turned to economic issues: Now that the social and national security problems were largely under control, how could this tiny resource-poor densely-populated country sustain itself?<br /><br />All in all, <u>From Third World to First</u> is a great read for anyone interested in a rags-to-riches story where the sympathetic protagonist is a country. Yew takes the magic out of the rise of this Asian Tiger, though that doesn't make Singapore's progress less remarkable. <br /><br />In Singapore, government involvement in economic development is extensive. The Singapore government took the lead in spurring new industries with public-private enterprises. The deep public-private ties would be anathema to many a Western free-market capitalist. One example is Singapore Airlines, a highly-profitable and globally-competitive subsidiary of the Singapore Government with extensive oversight by government officials. When you compare Singapore Airlines to the flop of Air Canada, you begin to wonder how the Singapore government succeeded where the Canadian government failed. Yew places much credit on the success of Singapore’s private-public enterprises on that fact that government officials in charge had a clear mandate: <span style="font-weight:bold;">Make it Profitable, or Shut it Down. </span><br /><br />Yew also emphasizes the importance of selecting a high-quality civil service. As he puts it, <span style="font-style:italic;">"The key to [Singapore's] success was the quality of the people in charge."</span> In Singapore, government officials are extremely well-paid (by our standards), which Yew argues attracts recruits and reduces corruption. Candidates for important positions are extensively analyzed: Their academic record, achievements at work and “character” are all vetted. Yew mentions that he decided to evaluate “character” through the use of psychological testing after watching <span style="font-style:italic;">Apollo 13</span>. Apparently, Yew was impressed with how calm the <span style="font-style:italic;">Apollo 13</span> astronauts were in spite of their peril; this impelled him to adopt NASA-style psychological testing to government recruits. <br /><br />On social issues, Singapore has government intervention that would be anathema in the Western world. At one point, Singapore banned the importation and sale of chewing gum in order to combat "gum wad" vandalism. Another time, the government created a "Social Development Unit" to facilitate socializing between male and female graduates in the hopes of encouraging marriage; Yew had been concerned that <span style="font-style:italic;">"male graduates who married less-educated women were not maximizing the chances of having children who make it to university". </span><br /><br />In terms of governing style, what impressed me about Yew is that he was never a prisoner to any theory. When he made decisions, he did not ask what <span style="font-weight:bold;">could <span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span>work, he asked what <span style="font-weight:bold;">did <span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span>work. And to learn what did work, Yew did not shy from learning from those who got it right. As he put it, <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"I discovered early in office that there were few problems confronting me in government that other governments had not met and solved. So I made a practice of finding out who else had met the problem we faced, how they had tackled it, and how successful they had been." </span><br /><br />This statement reminds me of an <u><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande">article on healthcare reform</a></u> by Atul Gawande, where Gawande wonders if maybe the best way to discover the "best" healthcare system for America is too run a bunch of small-scale experiments with different models to see what works. <br /><br />Singapore's development is impressive, and much of its success is attributable to Lee Kuan Yew's political and analytical skills. At the same time though, I wonder how portable Yew's lessons are to a larger state. A lot of the wildly successful economies in Asia have been the city-states: Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Are the good practices of Singapore workable in a country on the scale of America, or even Canada? Besides size differences, social, cultural and geopolitical differences may have played a key role in Singapore's success, though that’s an issue for an economics thesis.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-20667637452377912152011-11-05T00:44:00.009-04:002011-11-05T00:54:56.858-04:00Software patents and shorter Marty GoetzShorter Marty Goetz: <u><b><a href="http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2011/10/29/should-software-be-patentable-thats-the-wrong-question-to-ask-40094152/2/">Software is valuable, therefore it should be patentable. </a></u></b><br /><br />Goetz was the recipient of the first U.S. software patent ever awarded. In this ZDnet article, he defends software patents, where his basic argument is that software deserves patent protection because software development is a billion-dollar industry. For several reasons, Goetz fails to make a persuasive argument for software patents. <br /><br />To begin, why do we even have a patent system? The patent system gives the inventor of a useful device a limited right to use the government to protect against unauthorized copying. The benefit to society is that patents encourage innovation: people are more likely to invent if they know a competitor can’t <u><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem">free-ride</a></u></b> on their efforts. The limited term of a patent ensures that today’s protections do not prevent tomorrow’s inventions.<br /><br />Going back to Goetz’s article, in some sloppy sense, yes, patents are meant to protect things that are "valuable": They should cover socially desirable inventions that are unlikely to come about without protections against free-riding. <br /><br />But things are not that simple when it comes to software patents. First, it is unclear whether patent protection would encourage innovation in the software industry. Programmers might write useful software even without patent protection. <br /><br />Even if patents could spur software innovation, the system may be too difficult to administer. If writing a piece of software and reducing it to practice is easier than making a physical widget, software patents will add to the patent office backlog. If figuring out whether software is <b><u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability#Requirements">novel, useful and non-obvious</a></b></u> is more difficult because of the abstract nature of programming, software patents will add to the court dockets. <br /><br />Software patents may also hinder future innovation. A great weakness of software patents is the difficulty of due diligence: There is no easy way to determine if a program is infringing on earlier patents, and the risk of litigation may deter innovation. <br /><br />These are just a few issues ignored by Goetz, though any argument for software patents should address them. <br /><br />The closest thing Goetz has to an argument is his point that because "software and hardware circuitry are interchangeable", it makes no sense to allow patents for one and not the other. For example, there are many functions that can be implemented in both software and hardware, such as FFTs in cell phones. Goetz argues that because the same amount of effort goes into the software and hardware implementation, patents should be available for both. <br /><br />What Goetz ignores is that a patent issued on a hardware implementation does not cover the mathematics behind it. The patent protects only the physical device from copying, not the abstract ideas that make it work. One benefit of limiting patent protection to a physical device is that it makes it easier to define the bounds of the invention. The clearer the boundaries, the less litigation. <br /><br />A more subtle benefit of tying patent protection to a tangible product is that it increases the likelihood that the invention is truly novel. The more abstract the patent, the more likely the device was independently invented, and vice-versa. Reducing an idea to physical form requires additional effort that narrows the field of possible inventors.<br /><br />In sum, Goetz doesn’t make a strong case for software patents. Of course, there are alternative ways to protect software from free-riding: Most notably, via trade secrets and copyright. Whatever approach is chosen, let’s hope it relies on a more compelling argument than "software is valuable, therefore it should be patentable".Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-63524782319790098672011-10-14T21:51:00.004-04:002011-10-14T22:11:52.867-04:00Book Review: The StandMy latest read was an older Stephen King novel, <u>The Stand</u>. Coming in at over 1400 pages, <u>The Stand</u> is basically three novels in one. <br /><br /><u>The Stand</u> is a Stephen King's foray into post-apocalyptic fiction. The novel is written from the perspective of the scattered survivors of a virus that has infected and killed close to 99% of humanity. The book is about how the survivors attempt to reestablish civilization. <br /><br />It's not a Stephen King novel without some supernatural force. In <u>The Stand</u>, We see that force in the form of physical manifestations of "good" and "evil": There is Mother Abagail, a wise and god-fearing 103-year-old woman who reaches people in their dreams and attracts them to rebuild society in Boulder, Colorado. There is also the evil and ambitious Randall Flagg, Satan's disciple, who uses dreams to attract the morally-bankrupt to build the "evil" colony in Las Vegas.<br /><br />The survivors of the plague trickle in from all parts of the country to join either the dictatorial Randall Flagg or the democratic Mother Abagail.<br /><br /><u>The Stand</u> was a good read when it came to the individual story-arcs. Stephen King is thorough when it comes to introducing his main characters. He may take 50 pages to describe where Stu Redman (a leading member of the "good" camp) hails from, but after those 50 pages you could describe Stu Redman as though he were a close friend. King also excels at tension-building narrative that makes you want to skip ahead to see what happens to a favored (or hated) character.<br /><br /><u>The Stand</u> was not a great read, however, because King does not do a good job describing the war between Mother Abagail and Randall Flagg (good vs. evil, basically). I think <u>The Stand</u> should have been a book about the personal struggles of post-apolyptic survivors in a world where mankind no longer controls nature. By introducing the supernatural and the battle of good vs. evil, King tried to make this story a treatise on theology. The end result is a very muddied moral message.<br /><br />For example, he spends close to 1200 pages building up the terror of Randall Flagg and highlighting the internal squabbles that threaten Mother Abagail's democracy. I expected the last 200 pages to describe a confrontation between the two camps that vindicates Mother Abagail's compassionate-though-inefficient society. Instead, the "evil" camp is destroyed in a freak accident when an atomic bomb detonates in Las Vegas. What this seemed to imply is that the "good" guys were saved by pure, dumb luck; it's not that "good" destroys evil, but that evil destroys itself. This seemed to me like King had enough of writing <u>The Stand</u> and looked for an easy way to end the story.<br /><br />I haven't seen the TV miniseries based on <u>The Stand</u>, though that's next on my to-watch list. Hopefully, the screen adaptation learned from King's mistakes and toned down the preachy message of the book. Stephen King is strong when it comes to narrative and character development, but moral philosophy is another issue.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-44347895217392783072011-08-25T11:55:00.007-04:002011-11-24T09:44:15.807-05:00Captain GullibleMovie review time! Or at least, here's my review of the latest comic book flick, Captain America. To put it bluntly, thumbs down for Captain America because the main character is an idiot.<br /><br />He's an idiot because to impress people, he agrees to be a guinea-pig for extremely dangerous medical testing that he knows nothing about.<br /><br />The movie is about a scrawny asthmatic kid Steve Rogers who wants to enlist in the army but is repeatedly rejected because of his health issues. Desperate to help with the war effort, Rogers decides to volunteer for a dangerous experimental medical treatment that turns him into the "super soldier" Captain America.<br /><br />Which brings me to the first reason Captain America is an idiot: He gives himself up for medical testing without knowing (a) the consequences; (b) the purpose or (c) the value of his contribution. The lesson this teaches is that if you're a "good guy", maybe even a "good American", you'll listen to your superior. If your boss tells you doing X is good for America, you should do X because you're a nice guy and nice guys like helping America. Never mind the irony that the movie suggests the best way to fight a racist regime that believes in Aryan Supremacy is to create Aryan super-soldiers like Captain America himself. Is the lesson really that you fight fire with fire?<br /><br />Captain America is an idiot for volunteering for the experiment because he has no idea what it could do to him. The movie portrays his eagerness as being due to his desire to impress a pretty lady who was nice to him and the creepy scientist who let him enlist. I would have liked to see him question his superiors a bit more before agreeing to be their guineapig. I guess I just don't buy that a "hero" is a guy willing to sacrifice his life for a cause, any cause, that some big-shot in the army says is important. I think a "hero" is a person who doesn't shy from asking hard questions and sticking to his moral principles. <br /><br />Captain America is also an idiot because after he develops superhero powers, he decides to save his buddies instead of killing Hitler or saving concentration camp prisoners.<br /><br />After he transforms into Captain America, his first order of business is to save his captured buddies from the Nazis. This is WWII, and I have trouble believing that captured POWs were worse off than starving inmates in concentration camps. Heck, I even doubt if captured POWs were worse off than harassed civilians subject to bombing raids and other atrocities. Yet rather than consider what purposes his skills should be put to, Captain America decides to just save his buddies.<br /><br />Maybe it seems I'm being picky here: Can you really blame a small-fry guy wanting to save his friends before he thought of the greater good of humanity? <br />I guess this boils down to a personal preference. To quote another superhero movie, "with great power comes great responsibility". In a nutshell, saving your buddies is acceptable if Captain America is just an average Joe; but when you have superpowers up the wazoo, you should do more. While you could argue that the whole point of the film is that it shows an everyday nice guy can be a "hero", I think being a "hero" depends on what you do AND what you are capable of doing. Our understanding of hero is an ordinary person who perseveres and does extraordinary things beyond their skillset. The quintessential example may be David taking on Goliath. For that reason, I don't see Captain America being a "hero"<br /><br />The story is redeemed somewhat when after saving his buddies, Captain America decides to go after the evil Red Skull to foil plans to launch weapons of mass destruction. Too little, too late , given that this happens only after spending ages saving his buddies.<br /><br />All in all, what I expected from Captain America is a story of a young man who questions authority and has strong moral values that even a military machine and war mongering cannot taint. Instead, I saw a story of an obedient little kid who accepts what people tell him at face value and is incapable of thinking big.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-88828375693439582172011-07-31T17:27:00.006-04:002011-07-31T17:45:57.757-04:00Dirt Control: Why Evening Showers Are BetterEvening showers are superior to morning showers for the following reason: Dirt control.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGnxsU87a-4kDZ5EWUGxBRHkEucGPyxfEpMbq8QoSYDRJ9mgINhyphenhyphenBV_eDuBC5STC7q9-sPZDuOv5vBvVCLsNQ8mfVfAFSb-WYxlNWJzZk8Q_d3af4gNCjKPLCjYKW9zouYx_5rOw/s1600/morning.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 286px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGnxsU87a-4kDZ5EWUGxBRHkEucGPyxfEpMbq8QoSYDRJ9mgINhyphenhyphenBV_eDuBC5STC7q9-sPZDuOv5vBvVCLsNQ8mfVfAFSb-WYxlNWJzZk8Q_d3af4gNCjKPLCjYKW9zouYx_5rOw/s400/morning.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5635634490521269074" /></a><br /><br />The graph above shows the accumulation of dirt after a morning shower. As you see, you are cleanest right after the shower. However, during the day, you accumulate more and more dirt. By the time it is time for you to sleep, you have reached the maximum level of dirtiness. And now you sleep for 6-8 hours in that filth. Yuck!<br /><br />The graph below is for evening showers. You go to sleep clean, and by the time morning hits and you go about your day, the dirt steadily climbs. By contrast with the previous graph, however, your night shower takes off all the grime from the day so you go to sleep pristine. <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsUIbwfdbdq1mEA4iJZCxSwBkc1syDCOS0NnwRwdptGH1hAu-RT8WQYmfn7rvFe1UJfulM5B-oukdw9gSTjXQJnEQelp1sYAuEzoBi9OdwgAImwNPioP0MPRk7Cqn5i7TTrDSDVQ/s1600/evening.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 293px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsUIbwfdbdq1mEA4iJZCxSwBkc1syDCOS0NnwRwdptGH1hAu-RT8WQYmfn7rvFe1UJfulM5B-oukdw9gSTjXQJnEQelp1sYAuEzoBi9OdwgAImwNPioP0MPRk7Cqn5i7TTrDSDVQ/s400/evening.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5635635792280356306" /></a><br /><br />As you can see, the area under the lines for the evening shower graph is less than for the morning shower graph. This means that with nighttime showers, you minimize how much time you spend filthy.<br /><br />Q.E.D.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-4678899192404020622011-06-30T17:43:00.001-04:002011-06-30T17:44:49.369-04:00Utah<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR1PQH1Z2YmBi7aiAdMuhvyB85rXSODPWHVOT3APdIxnylCqPrXZcUwEKixH7KpEJBGe94bt_UC_iygiVJOA7jxa-LeEm9_gZo05P_zj3Gqmwi9kO44UxRAuNDub3L_OFpRS8dQA/s1600/IMG_0911.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR1PQH1Z2YmBi7aiAdMuhvyB85rXSODPWHVOT3APdIxnylCqPrXZcUwEKixH7KpEJBGe94bt_UC_iygiVJOA7jxa-LeEm9_gZo05P_zj3Gqmwi9kO44UxRAuNDub3L_OFpRS8dQA/s400/IMG_0911.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5624131943570181314" /></a><br />Back from Utah! <br /><br />Awesome: Hiking in the canyons.<br /><br />Un-awesome: Catching giardia (water parasite).<br /><br />So it goes.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-12087221915251115822011-05-25T21:46:00.014-04:002011-05-25T22:13:42.716-04:00Hollywood & The Art of WarI’m a fan of military flicks, and most of the ones I’ve seen focus on three conflicts: World War II, the Vietnam War and the Iraq and Gulf Wars. What’s interesting is the subtle differences in how these conflicts are presented by Hollywood. <br /><br />World War II movies have the most inspiring stories. Films like <span style="font-style:italic;">Saving Private Ryan</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">Band of Brothers</span> (technically a TV miniseries) portray war as regrettable, but a necessary evil in the face of a greater evil. That the mission is noble is never questioned, which is curious because the propriety of humanitarian intervention was a hot-topic in America at the time. <br /><br />Allied soldiers are presented as young men fearful of death who nonetheless courageously move forward to serve humanity. The soldiers aren’t above reproach, but abuses are generally targeted at the enemy (e.g. the desire to shoot Nazi POWs rather than play nanny). It’s a rare film that suggests Allied soldiers abused civilians, which is in keeping with the overall heroic tone of the films. <br /><br />At the other extreme are Vietnam war flicks which portray war as an senseless waste of human beings. These include films like <span style="font-style:italic;">Platoon</span>, <span style="font-style:italic;">Apocalypse Now</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">Full Metal Jacket</span>. The promising young soldiers embroiled in the Vietnam War lack the moral high-ground of WWII soldiers. Simply put, godless Communists don’t play villain as nicely as genocidal Nazis. Being forced to fight (conscription was the norm) for a senseless cause made it hard for soldiers to justify their violence. <br /><br />Another feature of these films is that psychosis is common among the grunts (low-level soldiers) and these bouts of insanity lead to atrocities like the My Lai massacre. The mental breakdowns are largely blamed on the general atmosphere of the war, however – individual culpability is ignored. There’s a sense that you can’t blame the boys for doing what anyone in such terrible conditions would have done.<br /><br />More recently are movies dealing with the Iraq and Gulf (desert) wars such as <span style="font-style:italic;">Jarhead</span>, <span style="font-style:italic;">Generation Kill</span> (technically a TV miniseries) and <span style="font-style:italic;">The Hurt Locker</span>. In terms of style, these fall somewhere between inspiring WWII films and depressing Vietnam War films. <br /><br />In these films, we see a growing comfort with wars waged for a less-than-pure purpose. The belief that the desert wars are about oil is so widespread it's cliché, but these films are much less negative than those from the Vietnam era. It’s as though Hollywood accepted that war motivated less by moral concerns than economic interests is redeemable.<br /><br />Unlike their Vietnam War and WWII brethren, these soldiers weren’t conscripted and they accept their role as “grunts for hire”. There is a hyper-masculinization of conflict – the soldiers call themselves “warriors” (not entirely jokingly) and are itching to “kick some Haji ass”, as <span style="font-style:italic;">Generation Kill</span> puts it so eloquently. Though their cause may not be noble, the soldiers seem to have accepted their role with gusto – perhaps this is why we see fewer instances of psychosis. <br /><br />Another subtle shift is that abuse of civilians is admitted – soldiers not infrequently grapple with the temptation to mistreat innocents. However, such abuse is generally blamed on individual weakness rather than the atmosphere of combat, suggesting Hollywood is less comfortable attacking the war-machine.<br /><br />To wrap-up, there are subtle differences among these films depending on the conflict they present. Of course, what I've discussed are Hollywood films reflecting Hollywood’s impressions of the conflicts. Whether Hollywood’s views are representative of general public opinion is an issue for another post; or as a great military strategist put it, perhaps just as all war is based on deception, all war films are based on deception.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-49782225554894100812011-02-14T12:23:00.001-05:002011-02-14T12:26:20.159-05:00Is Internet access essential?To keep connected to my Canadian-ness (or is it Canadian-inity?), I try to follow the hot topics in Canadian news. One issue that has received a lot of attention is the CRTC’s decision to approve usage based billing by Canadian ISPs. I won’t get into the details here, but if you’re curious, Michael Geist has a <u><a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/usage+based+billing">great discussion</a></u> on what UBB is and why it matters.<br /><br />Geist runs an excellent blog discussing the technology law issues of the day. Geist’s posts on usage based billing caught my eye because of his <u><a href="ttp://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5611/99999/">recommended next-steps</a></u> for Parliament. Among other things, Geist suggests the Canadian government should mandate open-network policies, monitor ISPs to detect anti-competitive throttling and open spectrum auctions to international buyers.<br /><br />Geist’s recommendations seem reasonable. Who wouldn’t benefit from more competition among the ISPs? But maybe that’s because he has already accepted two points: One, that Internet access is essential; and two, that government intervention is the best way to promote Internet access.<br /><br />I’m more interested in the first assumption: Is Internet access essential?<br /><br />On the one hand, Internet access seems like a <u><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=First+World+Problems">First-World Problem</a></u>. Even if we shut the Internet off, what’s the big deal? No Internet means little more than no Facebook newsfeeds, no Netflix movies or no celebrity Twitter updates. Internet access isn’t indispensible – it’s just a convenience. If email and Skype are down, we still have communication via cell phones and coffee dates; and if Google and Wikipedia are down, we can still access information through libraries and encyclopedias.<br /><br />On the other hand, Internet access is about much more than Facebook stalking or lunch-hour Tweets. At the core of it, the Internet makes communication and easy access to information so much easier that it revolutionizes modern life. It's difficult to get by without instant communication and access to information. As local newspapers shut down, we depend on Internet news media to keep informed. As snail mail becomes unacceptably slow, we need email to communicate. Modern life depends on Internet access, and there’s no going back.<br /><br />So is Internet access essential? I guess I’ve come to the law student’s response: It depends. That could be a perfectly acceptable answer if relying on rhetoric was sufficient. But I've been pretty sloppy in my reasoning because I haven't broken down the question sufficiently. <br /><br />Before jumping into answering <span style="font-style:italic;">Is Internet access essential</span>, two terms need to be clarified: First, what does "Internet access" mean? Second, what does "essential" mean? Because these terms aren't very scientific, the definitions require value judgments.<br /><br />Defining Internet access can be tricky. What sorts of speeds matter - 56k dial-up modem or high-speed DSL? What level of reliability are we talking about - how much downtime a day, a week or month is acceptable? What type of access is acceptable - is any censorship of Internet content appropriate? <br /><br />Defining essential is also challenging. Essential for whom - large corporations or Joe Average? And essential for what - a decent quality of life for citizens (and if so, how do we measure quality of life) or nationwide economic growth (measured using GDP or some other way)?<br /><br />It may seem overly nit-picky to make the definitions so precise. I mean, isn't it obvious Internet access is essential for everyone (what would we do without <u><a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com/">lolcats</a></u>?) But pinning these terms down is important because we can't give a clear answer to a sloppy question. If we want informed public debate on the issue, we need to know what the issue is before we start arguing, especially when billions of tax dollars are at stake.<br /><br />In addition, being precise with definitions is important because it makes explicit who we're trying to protect. If the government shouldn't intervene unless Internet access is essential, defining the terms decides who is worthy of public attention. If we define Internet access narrowly as the ability for large corporations to use hi-speed DSL lines, then the beneficiaries will be corporations. If we define Internet access broadly as access to at least 56k speeds for the majority of the population, then the beneficiary is the general public. <br /><br />Bringing this back to Michael Geist's blog: The problem with his recommendations isn't that they don't make sense. The problem is that it's unclear who his recommendations are supposed to help. We should decide <span style="font-style:italic;">who </span>we're trying to help achieve <span style="font-style:italic;">what </span>before deciding how to help. Maybe it's nit-picky, or maybe it's just good practice.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-50631687538970145292011-01-16T02:08:00.004-05:002011-01-16T02:31:13.537-05:00Something is rotten in the works of GaimanTime to inaugurate the new year with some writing, so here's a review of <span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere </span>by Neil Gaiman, my first read of 2011.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere </span>is a fantasy novel about the magical adventures of Richard Mayhew, a young apathetic investment analyst in London, UK. After a boring day at work, Mayhew unwittingly discovers that London is actually split into two worlds: There is London Above, the busy metropolis Mayhew was familiar with; there is also London Below, a dangerous maze of underground sewers and tunnels home to a dark subculture. <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere </span>was my first introduction to Neil Gaiman, a best-selling fantasy author most famous for The Sandman comic book series. I wasn't too impressed with <span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere</span>: It read like an amateur foray into novel-writing rather than the product of a fantasy-genre specialist. <br /><br />In terms of writing style, <span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere </span>fails to make the reader suspend disbelief. Every fiction book asks us to imagine the world as the author writes it. However, the more farfetched the plot, the harder the author has to work to keep the reader engaged. Which leads to my problem with Gaiman: he's a creative author, but not a very convincing one. Just as you immerse yourself in his alternate universe, you read something so ridiculous it draws you back to reality. It's like watching Lord of the Rings and seeing the lighting director drinking a Red Bull in one of the scenes.<br /><br />One example was the dialogue. A few conversations into the book, you realize that every character sounds the same. Gaiman just cannot distinguish between how a powerful female warrior or a precocious young teenager or a wise old monk might speak. It's hard to suspend disbelief when you notice the ventriloquist, not the puppets. <br /><br />Another issue was the logic. Too often you find yourself reading along and thinking "<span style="font-style:italic;">wait, that makes no sense. Why did X happen? Why didn't Y try Z instead?</span>". Of course, by definition, a fantasy novel includes make-believe. But there's a difference between lacking reality and lacking logic: One makes for a good fantasy read, the other distracts and annoys the reader.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere </span>started off promising. The idea of a city being split into two parts (ego and id, anyone?) lends itself to interesting questions: What types of people populate London Above versus London Below? How do the two worlds interact? Do the residents of London Above or London Below have a clearer picture of reality? Instead, <span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere </span>relies on plot cliches: it's a book about the Unwitting Hero who has a Very Important Quest to complete with the help of Magical Objects so that he may Save The World. Overall, <span style="font-style:italic;">Neverwhere </span> is not great, not good but acceptable for a quick skim.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-39136136278459953832010-12-07T22:52:00.032-05:002010-12-08T00:15:53.798-05:00Prediction failBlame it on Star Trek?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqk_SxmQh1DF_UJ3lJxpjBVijfa5pgfMXFoJoZS2cufn20a3cydgi5ZKl8U17-nxVnSUpRPxAMRLWr4xVXc2gf4bP-RZlYv6wL9aRPGt8Q6buz3XqC6kr-GxChCZcCmlctSg0VxQ/s1600/dream.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 284px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqk_SxmQh1DF_UJ3lJxpjBVijfa5pgfMXFoJoZS2cufn20a3cydgi5ZKl8U17-nxVnSUpRPxAMRLWr4xVXc2gf4bP-RZlYv6wL9aRPGt8Q6buz3XqC6kr-GxChCZcCmlctSg0VxQ/s400/dream.png" border="" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5548173597332380130" /></a>Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-76405157253961341242010-12-04T03:26:00.004-05:002010-12-04T15:19:55.089-05:00My love/hate relationship with the environmental movementI have a love/hate relationship with the environmental movement. Well, 'hate' is a bit strong - it's more of a love/less love relationship. <br /><br />Love, because I agree with their ends. Less love, because I object to their means: The environmental movement tends to be regressive rather than progressive. By 'regressive', I mean that both public and private environmental organizations focus excessively on conservation as a way to stave off disaster. The unquestioned premise is that saving the planet requires hard sacrifice: Our showers should be shorter, our homes should be colder and our driving should be rarer. But are our options really so constrained?<br /><br />One problem with framing the debate as a choice between creature comforts and a healthy planet is that it misallocates resources. Time and money that could have been spent on innovation is instead spent on conservation awareness. The assumption is that today’s technologies will be tomorrow’s technologies, so the best way to protect the environment is to use less. But technological progress is difficult to predict, as the personal computer and Internet revolution have shown. It’s this unpredictability that should make us question the assumption that the Western lifestyle is unsustainable, now and forever. What is not possible with today’s technologies may be possible with tomorrow’s innovations.<br /><br />The environmental movement doesn’t entirely ignore progressive fixes. Some organizations lobby in support of R&D to try to discover new technologies. But the effort often falls short of what is needed. The same tired fixes are advocated (or at least, focused on in media campaigns): Replacing coal and oil fuels with expensive solar and wind power or replacing incandescent lighting with toxic CFL bulbs, to give two of the most popular examples. The serious shortcomings of these technologies are often attributed to if-onlys: <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-style:italic;">If only we devoted more time, money and attention to these technologies</span>, they would be superior alternatives</span>. I don't disagree that these technologies <span style="font-style:italic;">could </span>revolutionize sustainability; I just think we should be hesitant about placing all our bets on a few currently-unpromising technologies.<br /><br />Framing the debate as a choice between comfort and sustainability also tunes people out. Life is more enjoyable for those who can enjoy our modern creature comforts such as cars, hot showers and air conditioners. Someone who uses these conveniences receives a direct benefit in terms of quality of life. By contrast, a person who sacrifices these amenities may enjoy an attenuated benefit years from now, if at all: Your neighbors may free-ride on your efforts or the measures may not go far enough. The result is that pleas for voluntary sacrifice fall on deaf ears: The short-term view wins out because the long-term benefit is unclear. Consequently, it's unsurprising that environmental groups have tried to make conservation measures mandatory.<br /><br />Environmental organizations lobby the government to force people to use less. Unfortunately, these mandatory measures often disproportionately affect the poor. One example is support for a tax on driving. The problem with a driving tax is that the cost is most heavily borne by the less-affluent. Driving taxes punish people with little disposable income for whom driving is not a luxury but a prerequisite for work. Another example is support for Green building standards. The issue with such standards is that they raise the upfront costs of homes. Even if these costs are recouped in the long-term, the house is out of reach for families who can’t pay the upfront premium. Other conservation measures that fall hard on the poor are requirements for paperless offices, biofuels, utility renewable-energy minima, etc.<br /><br />In short, I question whether conservation is the best way to achieve environmental protection. A better solution may be to mobilize resources to discover eco-friendly technologies that will allow us to enjoy our creature comforts.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-87090954227615673652010-10-27T19:56:00.006-04:002010-10-27T20:01:53.922-04:00Money can buy happiness... right?If you follow legal news, you may have heard of <span style="font-style:italic;">Snyder v. Phelp</span>s, a recent Supreme Court case evaluating the extent to which the First Amendment protects anti-gay protesting at a soldier’s funeral. The solider was Matthew Snyder, a homosexual and enlisted Marine who died in combat in Iraq. Several members of a church decided to picket at his funeral, holding placards with homophobic messages such as “God Hates F--gs”. The Snyder family sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and was awarded $10.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages.<br /><br />Which brings me to the topic of today’s post: Money damages for emotional harm. The Snyder family was awarded millions of dollars for their emotional harm though it’s unlikely any amount of money could completely alleviate their suffering. Which makes me wonder, if money is such an imperfect remedy for emotional injuries, why do courts award it? Economic losses are easily compensated with dollars: If you break my $300 window, it makes sense that you should pay me $300. But emotional harm is subjective and intangible, so what purpose do money damages serve? <br /><br />As a preliminary matter, it may help to consider what courts are trying to achieve by awarding money damages for economic injuries.<br /><br />If you break my window and are forced to pay me $300, you will probably avoid whatever activity got you into the mess to begin with. So one purpose of money damages is deterrence. In the <span style="font-style:italic;">Snyder </span>case, the millions the church had to pay out would almost certainly deter them from future funeral-crashing. But deterrence probably isn’t the sole purpose of money damages. If the goal was simply to deter, the victim doesn’t have to receive anything – the money paid out could go to the government and still discourage the wrongdoer. So why would most of us balk at the idea of leaving the victim with nothing?<br /><br />Going back to the window example, your actions made me worse off by $300 – the value of the window – so it seemed fair that I should receive $300 to ‘undo’ the harm. The damages ‘seemed fair’ because, whether born or bred, many of us believe that the person who creates a mess should clean it up. Is such <span style="font-style:italic;">quid pro quo</span> justice at work in the <span style="font-style:italic;">Snyder </span>case? It seems likely. The family suffered a tremendous emotional injury and perhaps money damages were an attempt to use an economic boost to offset those emotional losses. At first thought, this seems strange. I can exchange an economic good – money – to compensate for an economic harm – a broken window – but how can an economic good compensate for an emotional harm? Can money really buy happiness, or at least mend a broken spirit?<br /><br />While there’s no Happiness Boutique selling doses of glee (besides <u><a href="http://store.steampowered.com/">Steam</a></u>, of course), money still provides a tremendous boost of opportunity to those who have it. A new iPad or a Disney vacation package won’t give you everlasting joy, but you’ll likely experience at least a momentary boost of happiness. So by awarding the Snyder family money damages, we may implicitly be thinking “we don’t know what to buy to restore your peace of mind, but maybe you do”. The hope is that the victim is better suited to know what goods or services can mitigate their suffering. Perhaps the Snyder family will use their millions to fund gay rights organizations, healing themselves by helping other families avoid such emotional harm. Whatever they spend the money on, they’re more likely to know what works. <br /><br />Another purpose of money damages could be punishment. Rather than trying to undo the harm to the victim, we could try to “level the playing field” by injuring the wrongdoer. An eye for an eye. Paying me $300 after you’ve broken my window ensures that you suffer the same economic loss I suffered. And if money can buy happiness, making the church pay in the <span style="font-style:italic;">Snyder </span>case is a way of making the church members worse off. Justifying money damages as a form of punishment is still problematic, however. We’re back to the deterrence problem: If you just want to punish the wrongdoer, the victim doesn’t have to receive anything – the money could go to the government. In addition, punishment isn’t a great way of leveling the playing field because it only deals with the victim and the wrongdoer: what about their positions relative to the rest of the world? So it’s unlikely punishment is the sole motivation behind money damages.<br /><br />It’s likely that all three of these purposes of money damages – deterrence, punishment and compensation – are present to different degrees in all emotional injury cases. But from what I’ve discussed, it seems that compensation is the easiest to justify – both to the courts and to ourselves.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-72402691340615241402010-06-30T21:25:00.030-04:002010-06-30T22:11:46.426-04:00Organic food and the Garden of EdenAn organic food craze has swept North America, and New York City has been especially hard hit.<br /><br />Competing with the likes of Saks Fifth Avenue and Louis Vuitton for pricey Manhattan real-estate are dozens of organic grocers. And it's not just rich students who shop at Whole Foods, Amish Market or Lifethyme organic markets - my (unscientific) observation is that New Yorkers from all walks of life buy organic.<br /><br />I can understand why organic food is especially popular in NYC. New Yorkers know their lifestyle isn't very conducive to healthy living, but there's not much they can control. If you want to live here, it's hard to avoid the smog-filled air, congested commutes, stressful workplaces or crime-ridden streets. One thing that you can control, however, is what you eat, so you're willing to pay more for food you perceive as healthier. In NYC, this means buying organic.<br /><br />What does 'organic' mean anyway? I used to think organic meant a return to nature and traditional farming techniques and a repudiation of factory farms, pesticides and artificial growth hormones. <br /><br />But the organic I see at the grocery store is at odds with this image. Since when does letting nature work its magic lead to perfectly spherical blemish-free juicy oranges? Do free-range hens routinely produce twelve perfectly white identically-sized Omega-3 fortified eggs? Yet this is what consumers demand when they buy organic: Perfection. Organic doesn't include misshapen, malformed or discoloured food. Organic means sanitized, clean and orderly products.<br /><br />So what is the organic fad about? It's not about a return to nature - It's about a reinvention of nature. We think that if only we worked with nature, we would have perfect food, effortlessly. But we're forgetting that food production is a history of fighting against nature, a battle against insects, fungi, drought, disease and frost. Perfect oranges and perfect eggs didn't just appear - they required generations of industrious labor. Perhaps the organic food craze is really the result of believing that we can return to a past that never existed: A world where growing healthy, bountiful food was <i> easy </i>.<br /><br />The more news you read (earthquakes, and recessions, and wars, oh my!), the more you can understand why it is so appealing to imagine that there was a time when life wasn't so difficult. It's comforting to believe that the Garden of Eden <i> did </i> exist, and it's only a matter of time before we recreate Utopia. And it's frightening to think otherwise: That despite all our blood, sweat and tears, we may never rise above hell on Earth.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-35949137621138225642010-05-02T19:25:00.003-04:002010-05-02T19:28:45.434-04:00Study view<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTRnbaFiPP2ft3qqRDdeFtfXmoDDMtU__PFdJSBGNI7tx061tUWw_DQCZM67bm4k1REfQKtGp8z9nwfVzkZt6UcJqsyOZ7pvVKjn61drRv850v6ApqsvCgmDGeq4eRikLzxEgg0Q/s1600/SDC10708.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTRnbaFiPP2ft3qqRDdeFtfXmoDDMtU__PFdJSBGNI7tx061tUWw_DQCZM67bm4k1REfQKtGp8z9nwfVzkZt6UcJqsyOZ7pvVKjn61drRv850v6ApqsvCgmDGeq4eRikLzxEgg0Q/s400/SDC10708.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5466818123911853778" /></a><br /><br />My temporary reprieve from studying.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-41042266137151653732010-03-27T00:28:00.016-04:002010-03-27T01:02:11.879-04:00Critically-acclaimed acting: Born or bred?<div><div>If you follow entertainment news, you might have heard about a fancy little awards ceremony called the Oscars. This year, one of the Best Actress nominees was Gabourey Sidibe for her performance in <i>Precious</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>What makes Sidibe's nomination interesting is that <i>Precious </i>was her acting debut; Sidibe had no prior formal acting training or experience. In addition, Sidibe is not an isolated case when it comes to actors acclaimed for debut roles. In the Best Actress category, four performers won and ten performers were nominated for <u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">"</span><a href="http://www.filmsite.org/bestactress.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">their first (substantial) screen roles or during the first year of their film caree</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">r"</span></u>. These statistics are even more pronounced in the Supporting Actress categories.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>It's surprising that actors can attain the height of prestige <br />for debut roles; in many technical fields, there's little hope of renown without years of formal training and research.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps this 'fast-track to success' is peculiar to the humanities. For example, consider the Man Booker Prize for Fiction, a prestigious award granted to the <u>"<a href="http://www.themanbookerprize.com/prize/about"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">very best book of the year</span></a>"</u>. In the 40 year history of the prize, four debut novels have won a Booker and many more were nominated.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>It makes sense to me that debut novels can achieve critical acclaim. We practice writing skills from our first days in school, English and literature courses are frequently compulsory and many people maintain a blog or journal. In effect, we receive writing training all our lives. By contrast, acting isn't as commonly trained (at least formally). Few school programs have compulsory drama classes and most people do not participate in performance groups. </div><div><br /></div><div>My thinking is that the issue goes deeper than simply acting being 'easy'. </div><div><br /></div><div>One explanation might be that performance prowess is simply a matter of fitting the right person to the right role. Who needs formal training if the character you're playing is indistinguishable from your everyday persona? Perhaps Gabourey Sidibe didn't need to act so much as portray her own quirks and nuances. </div><div><br /></div><div>Alternatively, maybe acting training comes from our day-to-day interactions with others. In a way, aren't we are all actors performing in the drama of our lives? If acting is the art of deception, we might get plenty of practice from years of putting on our game-face or telling little white lies. Sidibe might simply be better at "becoming the other" than most of us. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><div>At the end of the day perhaps "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."</div><div></div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div></div></div>Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-55543928806237615162010-01-22T20:59:00.012-05:002010-01-24T01:16:14.022-05:00Healthcare reform: A complex issue, dumbifiedAs many of you know, Massachusetts recently hosted a heavily contested Senate race. Throughout the campaigning, national healthcare reform was a hot-topic, as one would expect given the razor-thin Congressional margins on reform proposals. What I found unsettling about the debate on healthcare reform was how simplistic and politicized the discussions were about arguably the most pressing issue of the next decade.<br /><br /> The healthcare reform debate raised by the Coakley/Brown teams never seemed to develop beyond cursory exclamations of “Yay/Nay for Obamacare” . The question became not <i>what type of reform proposal would best serve America?</i>, but <i>are you for or against Obamacare?</i>, as though there were only one way to go about healthcare reform. <br /><br />In the current American political landscape, supporting healthcare reform has become synonymous with supporting Obamacare and by extension, the Democrats, whereas supporting the status-quo (and being anti-Obamacare) is a marker of a true Republican. Just as with the issue of global warming, healthcare reform has become a litmus test for your political values. If you tell people you support healthcare reform, you won't be asked about specific plan you are vouching for; you will simply be labelled as a flag-burning, Soviet-worshipping, tree-hugging liberal (at worst).<br /><br />The only winners when it comes to the polarized reform debate are the interest groups that support these definitions. When the Republicans or the Democrats paint reform as a case of two extremes, they've cornered their moderate constituencies into supporting the mockery of a reform they espouse. The moderates are bullied into believing that if they don't support THE definition of what healthcare reform should be, they're not true Democrats/Republicans.<br /><br />What has been lost in the process are the innovative opinions about how healthcare can be structured to satisfy the demands of the American citizenry. When the public discourse is narrowed to a simplistic and politicized discussion of whether you are for or against Obamacare, viable alternatives and civic debate are stifled. Is it any wonder that people are increasingly tuning out the reform debate?<br /><br />Few people believe in either a fully laissez-faire (pay your way) system or total government control of medical care. Moderation is the rule, but the binary discourse has made moderation a dirty word. As a result, the more palatable solutions to a pressing problem are lost in favor of two unsavory extremes. My hope is that as the reform debate rages on, moderates will succeed in redefining the issues to better reflect the values of ordinary Americans.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-15418784797167892332009-07-17T00:38:00.015-04:002009-07-17T00:58:42.882-04:00Homophobia masked as comedyI saw <i>Bruno</i> a few days ago, and I thoroughly disliked the experience. The movie had received excellent reviews from many respected movie critics, some of whom claimed that the triumph of Bruno was that it mocked societal acceptance of homophobia.<br /><br />It was my experience that the only thing that <i>Bruno</i> seemed to mock were the homosexuals it purported to defend. Although I lost track of the number of scenes where gays were portrayed as lascivious perverts, I cannot think of a single scene where there was a sympathetic gay character.<br /><br />I am reminded of one scene in particular (spoiler alert!) where a naked Bruno is portrayed seated in a hot tub with his adopted African toddler and two naked men. In this hot tub scene, despite the presence of a child, the men in the hot tub pose in lewd positions that would raise the ire of any Children's Aid Society. This scene was unsettling on many accounts, one of which was the fact that such a scene does nothing to quash public fears about the ability of gay men to properly raise children. Another problem with the scene was that there was no follow-up attempt to correct this child-predator stereotype of gay men. Bruno was homophobic without questioning homophobia, and therein lied the offense.<br /><br />There were many other equally tactless scenes in the film, some of which mocked not only homosexuals, but blacks, foreigners and theists as well. It was as though the screenwriters of <i>Bruno</i> decided they would try to denigrate as many groups of people as possible in 81 minutes of film reel.<br /><br />Some people will say that the goal of <i>Bruno</i> was not to mock classes, but to mock our caricatures of these classes. That is, it was not Bruno's exaggerated gay mannerisms that were funny, but the fact that we attribute such mannerisms to gays. If this indeed was the intent of the Bruno screenwriters, they failed in a very important respect: At no point in the film was the audience presented with a normal homosexual male who, in contrast with Bruno, would have caused the audience to question stereotypes about homosexuals. If there had been a sympathetic gay character named Joe, for example, who was not overly flamboyant and sexual like Bruno, the film would have done a better job questioning societal acceptance of homophobia. Instead, every gay character in the film was portrayed as either a child abuser, a sexual pervert or a superficial fashionista.<br /><br />It is tempting to defend <i>Bruno</i> on the grounds that the screenwriters have a right to free speech (a right I heartily support) and, as a result, nit-picky 'liberals' like me should just stay away from the movie if we don't like it. However, as I will discuss in my next post, I believe that there is a critical difference between what you have the right to do, and what you should do. Too often, the right to free speech is used to justify morally questionable behavior.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-63646578043358301282009-06-15T19:28:00.018-04:002009-06-18T11:07:30.407-04:00It's the broken system, stupidIn 1953, the Executive branch grew a little stronger thanks to <u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds">United States v. Reynolds</a></u>. In this civil suit, the U.S. government refused to release confidential documents to the plaintiffs, claiming that doing so would endanger national security. The courts agreed to defer to the government's judgment, and the case was dropped.<br /><br />United States v. Reynolds gave rise to the the State Secrets Privilege, the civil court equivalent of the Classified Information Procedures Act. Basically, this decision granted the U.S. government the right to exclude from court proceedings sensitive information that could endanger national security.<br /><br />Almost fifty years later, the evidence the government withheld in United States v. Reynolds was declassified and released. As it turns out, this evidence contained nothing confidential; rather, it had embarrassing details that would have sunk the government's case. Clearly, the government's action here was an abuse of power, and given that, it would have made sense to ensure that some checks were placed on the State Secrets Privilege.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it is much easier to bestow power than it is to take it away. The government managed to ease the fears of the civil libertarians. The abuse of the SSP was blamed on the power-hungry politicians of the past and the government promised that in the right hands, the State Secrets Privilege would make America safer. And the power continued unchecked...<br /><br />The Bush administration welcomed the SSP, and invoked it a record number of times during its tenure. As we are now beginning to find out, much of the evidence that was hidden from the public eye with the SSP was not confidential at all; it was evidence that would have embarrassed and compromised the Bush administration had it been released. And yet the power continued unchecked...<br /><br />The fluffy and charming Obama admistration fares no better than the Bush administration in reining in the SSP. In <u><a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html">Mohamed v. Jeppesen</a></u>, the Obama administration took this power a step further and tried to dismiss not only evidence, but the entire case itself (to which the government is not even a direct party) ostensibly due to national security secrets. And the power continues unchecked...<br /><br />If there's one lesson I've gathered from the State Secrets Privilege debacle, it is that if the system is broken, fix the system.<br /><br />If the American political system is such that you need a perfect human being to make sure you don't start a war or torture people, then the system is broken. Maybe every 200 years or so, we may be lucky enough to find political leaders benevolent and intelligent enough to largely stamp out corruption and injustice in our country, but why wait 200 years for that? I don't disagree that it is unlikely we will ever find laws and constitutions perfect enough to render even a Pol Pot or Mussolini innocuous, but if we could reduce our dependence on the fleeting sense of virtue in power-hungry politicians, we would be better off. President Obama was the message of hope for many optimistic Americans, but I wonder if we should not be on our guard a bit more.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-56403028745862854652009-06-05T12:12:00.008-04:002009-06-05T16:46:38.972-04:00Context is keyIn 2001, Judge Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law on the role gender and racial identity have in a judge's interpretation of laws. Given the partisan nature of confirmations to the Supreme Court, it is not surprising that this speech was twisted and contorted to serve the interests of her critics. In particular, I want to focus on one tidbit from the speech which has been the playpal of many a Sotomayor critic.<br /><br />At one point in her talk, Sotomayor says the following<br /><br />"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."<br /><br />Taking her words a step further, this quote seems to suggest that Sotomayor believes that unbiased decisions will never be a reality in the courts. That in itself is not an earth-shattering idea (can an ideal in any instance ever be attained?), but she leaves open the question whether an aspiration to impartiality, because it cannot be more than an aspiration, has any function at all in the courts. Should judges refuse to keep their personal prejudices and biases in check whilst reaching decisions given that, as Sotomayor believes, their efforts will never free them of the choke hold of their background? Indeed, this quote, taken out of context, paints Sotomayor as a judicial extremist, a candidate for the High Court who believes that because judges cannot be perfectly impartial, they ought to sit back and let their race and gender define them.<br /><br />Yes, Sotomayor does take the view that judges cannot achieve perfect impartiality. She does not, however, leave it at that. Further on in her speech, she goes on to say<br /><br />"I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."<br /><br />And therein lies the soundbite that critics of Sotomayor leave out when discussing her judicial extremism. Going back to my previous point, Sotomayor confirms that point that I believe many of us are apt to agree with: that the impossibility of reaching an ideal does not mean we shouldn't do our utmost to reach it. Judges should not confer their verdicts with the air of superiority, believing that they possess an infinite wisdom. Rather, humility in rendering a decision, whether that means admitting that the precedent in a certain case is unclear or recusing oneself from a case in which one's prejudices will be unwieldy, should be the quality we look for in judges. In writing this post, I have not decided to join the <i>You Go Latina!</i> Sotomayor bandcamp; but I did become more wary of the age of Gotcha journalism. That being said, if anyone would like to forward Judge Sotomayor's <u><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1">entire speech</a></u> to some of her critics, you will be doing them a favor.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-40774923393744164712009-05-23T21:39:00.007-04:002009-05-23T21:47:18.513-04:00Where no director should have gone...I saw Star Trek (the movie) yesterday, and I feel compelled to write about the film. If I don't write about the film, I'll regret it in the future and time-warp back to today to write about the film. And by time-warping back, I will have changed the dynamics of my future, thereby creating an alternate reality. Whoops - spoiler alert!<br /><br />Back to reality. And by 'reality', I mean this reality. (I can't lay off the alternate reality jokes!) So what did I think of the film?<br /><br />Not much at all, actually. It wasn't slam-dunk horrible, but I hope I never see it again.<br /><br />I was impressed by the caliber of acting, even if some of the lines were cringeworthy ("My ex-wife got the planet in the divorce. I have nothing left except my bones.") Chris Pike was spot-on as Kirk, especially when it came to the signature flailing-arms run. Zachary Quinto was fantastic as Spock, although the resemblance to young Nimoy was a bit unsettling. Same goes for the rest of the Enterprise Crew, with the possible exception of Zoe Saldana as Nyota, for the reason that her character was rather one-dimensional and underdeveloped, as female characters often are in movies.<br /><br />That being said, I would have liked to see more of a focus on Treknobabble in the movie.<br /><br />The way Star Trek TOS positioned it, space was a vast expanse of nothingness in which matter was more precious than gold. Yes, there were many planets and ships to engage the crew members' senses, but despite the action, the Enterprise crew members could not completely dissociate themselves from the dark void surrounding the ship. It was this juxtaposition of action and nothingness that created some of the more poignant moments of the series where such issues as free will versus fate, faith versus reason, compassion versus justice were given free reign.<br /><br />To see space transformed into a circus of armadas and admirals was perhaps inevitable. This is Hollywood, land of the 30 second attention span, after all. The screenwriters themselves admitted that their focus was on creating an action-packed thriller attractive to a mainstream audience because, you know, normal people don't understand pseudoscience and Big Ideas. Without a solid storyline, however, this Star Trek is doomed to obsolescence; there's a reason why the original Star Trek series still inspires a legion of fans, and it has nothing to do with fancy graphics and pretty faces.<br /><br />Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to yesterday and avoid watching a certain film...Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-49581329742564656802009-05-13T15:14:00.015-04:002009-05-13T16:27:39.630-04:00Ruminations on intellectual property lawI want to write a bit about a book on intellectual property law I stumbled across, and kudos to anyone who isn't bored by the end of the post (assuming you make it so far). Entitled <i>Free Culture</i>, the book was written by Lawrence Lessig, a renowned intellectual property scholar who has argued notable copyright cases (e.g. Eldred v. Ashcroft) in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.<br /><br /><i>Free Culture</i> provides a clear and well-reasoned argument against taking a one-sided view of U.S. intellectual property (specifically, copyright) doctrine. Lessig carefully treads a legal minefield and persuasively argues that current copyright law occupies an extreme favoring the creative content providers. <br /><br />What I found especially refreshing about Lessig's book is that he takes the time to explain why we should care whether our copyright regime favors content providers. For Lessig, it's not as simple as saying "Copyright enriches corporations; therefore, copyright is bad". Lessig does not shy away from discussing the effects of legislation such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and, for an issue as controversial as copyright law, he is surprisingly effective at avoiding partisan polemic.<br /><br />It is frustrating to encounter news stories that place the copyright debate at one of two extremes: You either support property rights (and by extension, copyright law as it stands today), or you support freedom of culture. I was unsurprised that Lessig made it clear that supporting a free culture does not necessitate dropping all property rights, as some copyright advocates claim. I was, however, surprised at how well-versed Lessig is with regard to the other extreme of copyright law: that of allowing unrestricted access to creative content, whether this access is for commercial or private use. Lessig is careful to warn of the pitfalls of a free-for-all copyright regime.<br /><br />Although I find the book to be careless with some of its analogies. (e.g. at one point Lessig adopts the specious comparison of libraries with p2p software), I would love to see <i>Free Culture</i> more widely distributed to the legislators tasked with copyright reform. Lessig knows his stuff, and it's a shame that our legislators continue to pass harsher copyright laws without considering the impact of these laws on our culture.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-24427285369110240422009-03-17T12:37:00.004-04:002009-03-17T12:42:16.160-04:00Temporal Piggy-banksTime is money when you weave your way through a slow-moving crowd, muttering obscenities as you contemplate the important meeting you are late for.<br /><br />Time is pleasure when you inch your car toward your turn, hoping to intimidate a pedestrian into interrupting her leisurely stroll and hurrying up.<br /><br />Sometimes I wonder, what will you do with those few seconds you saved?<br /><br />Do you go home and place your precious seconds in a temporal piggy-bank, waiting to accumulate enough time to finish your violin concerto or the great Canadian novel? <br /><br />Will you squeeze in an extra sentence in the bedtime story you grudgingly read to your child? <br /><br />Or will you finally have enough spare time to tell your spouse <span style="font-style:italic;">I love you </span>before it is too late and regrets set in?Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31518975.post-60441375130934412382009-03-03T12:51:00.007-05:002009-03-03T13:59:10.001-05:00Waste Not, Want NotLast fall, my mother made a delicious preserve using fruit from an apple tree she found in our neighborhood. My mother was surprised that this apple tree was not picked clean by hungry scavengers; people walking by the tree were not tempted by its supple fruit, preferring to leave the apples on the ground to form compost.<br /><br />Having grown up in a country where food shortages were not uncommon, my mother could not imagine letting the apples she found go to waste. Despite living in a country blessed with an embarrassing abundance of food, she has not forgotten to Waste Not, Want Not.<br /><br />Then there's me.<br /><br />Despite the example of my mother, I am ashamed to admit I have adopted the culture of waste that many of us are fortunate to experience. I say fortunate, because it truly is fortunate to live in a country where food is so plentiful, you don't think twice about wasting it. <br /><br />My behaviour is all the more baffling because I often deride the vapid consumerism that leads to a culture of waste whilst scraping my leftovers from dinner into the trashbin. Perhaps it's time to confront this incongruence and resolve to minimize my contribution to the culture of waste.Evahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05633561820799244351noreply@blogger.com2