Andrews Website Feed

Belief in Tigers

2012-02-04T00:00:00-05:00

Belief in Tigers

I’ve just finished reading the book Life of Pi. I personally think that it’s a fantastic book and the author, Yann Martell, does a brilliant job making the quite outlandish and surreal story seem so believable. I’ll confess that through the first half of the book or so, I thought I was reading a true story; he’s that good. Of course, that’s actually part of the point of the story. It deliberately challenges what one accepts as criterion for belief by asking the question, “Between two equally complete and sound explanations for an event, which makes the better story?”

Chesterton pointed out in Orthodoxy that human beings have this desire to ‘seek.’ That is, to look for some kind of greater meaning in this existence of theirs. They witness coincidences and see providence. They experience suffering and find a journey. They view themselves and everything around them and see more than what is plainly obvious. They see God, or their version of God, in everything.

Yet, at the same time people also have a seemingly contrary desire to be objective. Objectivity brings strength because it helps to avoid falsehood and delusion. It allows us to make choices wisely. It allows us to know, not just think. Yet, devotion to objectivity has leads us to society today, where people believe that to seek meaning is not objective and this has created a situation where people are torn between these two desires and many forgo any concept of higher truths in hopes for fear of falling into falsehood.

Life of Pi attacks this situation. It is the story of how the titular Pi Patel survives in a lifeboat for two hundred and twenty seven days at sea before being rescued. Pi is a religious boy, and in his adventure he find himself coming closer to God. Or does he? The story is Pi’s story and it’s unclear how much of it is the truth, how much is false, and how much is metaphor for what “really” happened. Pi’s story is fantastic, and it involves tigers, zebras, and fantasy islands, none of which seem out of place or unbelievable as he tells his story, but all of which when taken together seem incredible. Pi offers an alternate, less fantastic explanation, but asks us whether we really want to believe that explanation.

Life of Pi touches on that need to “answer the riddle” which Chesterton pointed out, but it seems to have a different take on the issue. While Chesterton claims that humanity seeks and therefor there is something to seek, Martel claims that there is clearly nothing to seek, but we should believe anyway because the alternative is too depressing. If Life of Pi has a thesis, it’s this: “There is no God, but we should believe anyway.” I’m not sure how to take that.

Last update: 04/02/2012

Big Brother is Watching You Poop

2012-01-28T00:00:00-05:00

Big Brother is Watching You Poop

January 28, 2012

He’s kind of got a fetish.

Blackout Day, The Public Consciousness, and a general defense of Slacktivism.

2012-01-19T00:00:00-05:00

Blackout Day, The Public Consciousness, and a general defense of Slacktivism.

Yesterday, hundreds of websites((Including such notables as Wikipedia, Reddit, and even my rather unimportant corner of the web.)) were “blacked out” in protest against two pieces of particularly onerous legislation, SOPA and PIPA.((For those whe don’t know, these are anti-piracy bills (in the sense of copyright infringers, not open seas marauders) which threaten to emplace draconian measures which will affect thousands of perfectly legal and innocent websites and businesses along with the criminals. Google has more info. )) In addition to the blackouts, many other websites posted information about these two bills on their websites along with reasons to oppose them. As a result 18 senators, some of who had previously been cosponsors, have newly announced their opposition to these bills. In addition, the subject has broached the national consciousness and now mainstream new organizations across the country are reporting on the debate. With all kerfluffle, one would think that the blackout has served it’s primary purpose in spreading awareness and dealt a powerful blow to forces attempting to push these bills through Congress.

There are, however, dissenting voices. Maddox an individual known for his controversial entertainment website has made the claim that “Blackout Day” is just another example of Internet “Slacktivism,” which will ultimately go nowhere and is a symptom of the general malaise and of todays generation of protesters: people who will protest anything so long as they can do so from the safety and comfort of their own computer screens. He says:

There have been many bills attempted (and some passed) like SOPA before it. There’s the DMCA act of 1998, PRO-IP Act of 2008, the 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and now the PROTECT IP Act of 2012. Think this victory means anything? A new bill gets introduced every year or two like clockwork. Check back in a few years, and there’ll be another SOPA or Protect IP Act being squeezed down the lower intestinal tracts of congress. And then what? We black out our websites again like a merry band of idiots?

Raising awareness is a great way of feeling good about yourself without actually doing anything.

Maddox goes on to propose that the only way to effect permanent change is to protest in a manner which is both uncomfortable and which takes the fight to where the money is. He suggests that a general boycott of the three largest supporters of the bill will do much more in the long term than Blackout Day did.

And here’s where I disagree. Maddox and those who think like him, have a fundamentally broken idea of how politics works. According to them, the only way to stop these bills or others like them is to stop the money funding them. To a degree this is correct, these bills have a lot of corporate support and a few industries are spending fortunes on lobbyists and campaign donations to encourage these bills pass. If these companies were successfully pressured to change their minds then, yes, these bills and others like them would cease to be an issue, at least for the short term. But he’s wrong in that the problem is actually much deeper than that.

The problem is that there is an economic incentive for the companies that the MPAA and RIAA represent to want these pieces of legislation to pass. Piracy is a legitimate problem and these bills would seem to help them deal with it, even if they were to do so ham-handedly and unjustly. Pressuring two or three companies to change their stance on the issue would help in the short term, but in the long term the motive for these bills would still exist and it would only be a matter of time before and they try again. Maddox’s solution is just as short term a solution as he believes Blackout Day to have been.

The economic incentive for Internet censorship will only disappear after substantial changes to the content production industries have happened which make piracy yet again a fringe issue. The root cause can’t easily be dealt with through political means. We need a means to sustain long-term opposition to these bills and attacking these companies won’t achieve that.

However, there is one strong weapon which can be used against the proponents of Internet censorship, and that is the Public Consciousness. If the general public is made aware of the issue, made aware of the stakes, made to care, and made to strongly oppose SOPA, PIPA, and similar legislation, then it will become increasingly difficult to get something like them passed. The United States of America is a republic, which is a kind-of-a-sort-of-a democracy. Even today, with the widespread corruption and heavy influence of money on politics,((Actually these things have always been rampant; they aren’t particularly worse today than they were at the time of Andrew Jackson’s election or Harry Truman’s. Only the scope of the Federal government and its ability to cause harm through corruption has really increased.)) the ultimate authority in the country still lies with the people and if the people are broadly and strongly opposed to something, it would be very difficult for it to gain traction in the political arena.

Slavery for example, could not be legalized in todays political climate,((even ignoring the constitutional amendments which prohibit it)) even if corporate America supported it wholeheartedly. Similarly with child labor. The reason is that these issues are seen as moral issues in the eyes of the public. Piracy, so far, is mostly an economic issue. People don’t care about economic issues unless they affect them personally. Moral issues, however, are the rallying cries of the political power brokers. Turning something into moral issues with broad support (or opposition,) is the easiest, most effective, and most long-lasting way to mobilize millions people. Sell the public on a moral issue, and they won’t need to be told to boycott.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of people take time off from work to protest abortion.((The March for Life regularly draws over 250,000 people and in 2011 drew in excess 400,000)) This is a hot-button issue for millions of Americans; it’s a maker and breaker among conservative political candidates. Millions of people will actually refuse to vote for someone who supports abortion even if they agree with the candidate on every single other issue. In fact, the only reason that abortion is still legal in America is because its supporters also see it as a moral issue. Abortion support is just as much a maker and breaker for progressive political candidates as it is for conservative ones. SOPA, PIPA, and similar bills are fundamentally moral issues too, and if the public were to regard them as such, and oppose them with the same fervor with which they fight over abortion, the allegiances of corporate America would matter not one wit as compared to the will of the people.

This is why public awareness is so important. In order for an issue to gain broad support or opposition, it must first have public awareness. The Public Consciousness must be tuned to the issue and made to care about it, enough so that mainstream news covers it, that people read the coverage and look for it, and that people actually start caring about their representatives’ stances on the issue. Once that happens we’ve won (or lost depending on your view.)

And this is how Slacktivism helps. The act of using your own usual channels to spread your message lets people know your view, it gives people a chance to care about the issues you care about and is a necessary step towards moving politics in your direction. Post information on your blogs, bring up issues on public forums, sign online petitions, and especially join in large attention seeking stunts like Blackout Day. Why? Because then people will hear about your issue, they’ll start asking questions, they’ll start forming opinions, and maybe, just maybe, they’ll join you in the fight.

Last update: 19/01/2012

Fruitcake

2012-01-02T00:00:00-05:00

Fruitcake

The Masons and the Powells have finished with their latest film endeavor: Fruitcake. This is the first time to my knowledge that they’ve attempted to make a comedy of some sort that wasn’t a spoof and I guess it’s an interesting project. The premise is that a drunken young man hides an engagement ring meant for his girlfriend in a fruitcake and mails it to her family. After sobering up and realizing just how stupid that was, he travels across country attempting to chase it down as it gets re-gifted time and again.

The show is funny, in spurts but so much of it falls short through simple poor timing or just straight up non-sequitur or unbelievable dialog. Sometimes that’s the intent, but more often it just seems like the writers didn’t think the scenes through. I’ll give you an example of what I mean:

In the third episode, Guy and Champ, our heroes (Guy is the one who put his ring in the cake,) pay a visit to Uncle Eustace. We are informed:

“You know how growing up there was always that one uncle at thanksgiving who had his own special smell and told jokes you didn’t get but whenever you asked mom and dad about him, they changed the subject?”

“Uncle Eustace is that uncle?”

“Ha, no. When you ask that uncle about uncle Eustace, he changes the subject.”

That’s a funny exchange to be sure, but it completely set’s the wrong expectation for what we get when Uncle Eustace finally appears on screen. In most families, when members generally avoid the subject of one member, it’s usually due to something shameful. Because the member is in prison, for example. It’s generally not just because he’s weird or goofy. If it is a personallity quirk that they’re so embarrassed about, it had better be pretty big. We are thus lead to believe that there is something seriously wrong with Uncle Eustace.

But here’s the thing… Uncle Eustace isn’t in prison, he’s doesn’t wear women’s underwear, he’s not a hippie, he not anything really, just a little weird. He owns a Zune instead of an iPod and wears shorts with a suitcoat. Oh and he has a laserdisc collection which he’s really keen on. That’s really not that weird at all. My dad has a laserdisc collection. Lot’s of folks have weird hobbies, it’s not that unusual.

Uncle Eustace strikes me as kind-of-a-little annoying, nothing more. If his family avoids talking about him because of the things I saw of him in the show, then they’re the kind of real jerks I usually like to avoid. But that’s not really the problem here. The problem is that our writers oversell Eustace as a character and then under deliver. It’s clear that the writers were going for some kind of wacky character but Eustace just comes off as lame.

There were several things that the writers could have done to fix this. First, they could have dropped the foreboding exchange above so that when Eustace is introduced his weirdness would have come across as more of a shock and therefore more funny. Second, they could have amped up the crazy on Eustace so that Brick’s description of him turns out to be an understatement. Thirdly, they could have turned the joke on its head and turned Brick’s warning into a petty gripe, that is, make it so that Eustace is actually normal and make the joke that (surprise) Brick is actually being a jerk to her uncle. Any of these would have worked and wouldn’t have been a lot of effort to pull off, but they were missed.

The show has a lot of funny ideas behind it, and some funny moments, but it also got some wasted potential which is shame. There are a lot of these moments where the joke just doesn’t work, but it could have. I’m just not sure what to make of that.

Last update: 02/01/2012