Like many of you, I am greatly disappointed, if not entirely shocked, by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The decision was a Plessy v. Ferguson of our time, putting an already disadvantaged group, women, at the mercy of discriminatory organizations for superstitious and spurious reasons that should have no place in American public life. Unsurprisingly, all three of the female justices on the Supreme Court voted against Hobby Lobby.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing, legally scintillating dissent should itself vindicate our sex in the face of a risibly paternalistic ruling that presumes women incapable of making their own decisions about their reproductive health. I dare any of the (all-male) justices on the opposing side to produce a more compelling and well-reasoned argument than this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent
(It's worth reading the entire way through. Multiple times, if necessary.)
This ruling is a severe blow to women's rights in our country; the earlier comparison to Plessy v. Ferguson is no exaggeration. Under the guise of religious freedom, this Supreme Court decision sets a new precedent of "separate but equal" for employees of companies whose leaders believe that women ought to have less control over their sexual and reproductive lives than men do. Consider that Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to cover Viagra, circumcision, and vasectomies -- but somehow simultaneously refuses to pay for IUDs and Plan B. This plainly demonstrates that Hobby Lobby is willing to participate in the funding of some forms of birth control and reproductive healthcare, so long as the recipients are male. The Court is essentially sanctioning corporate sexism.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion significantly undermines the credibility of the institution and the ruling, as it is laden with ignorance and misinformation about women's health, contraceptives, and even about Christianity itself. For example, intrauterine devices primarily work by preventing fertilization rather than by causing a woman's body to reject the implantation of an embryo -- which means that, even under the most conservative Christian understanding of "the beginning of life," IUDs do not negatively affect human beings with personal rights. Hobby Lobby therefore does not even have reasonable religious grounds in refusing to cover IUDs. For that matter, Hobby Lobby's 401K plans invest in some of the same medical device and healthcare companies that make the products Hobby Lobby objects to covering. This is blatantly hypocritical, and the five Catholic male justices who sided with Hobby Lobby should have seen right through it. This Economist article does an excellent job of deconstructing the hypocrisies and irrationality of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/hobby-lobby-and-religious-exceptions
Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the majority's insistence that a corporation should be allowed to pick and choose the elements of the healthcare it is required to provide for its employees. So long as a corporation operates in this country, it ought to adhere to all of this country's laws, especially where they concern employees who are American citizens and who depend on these laws for protection. This savvy comedian, who spoke out about the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court came to its decision, points out that much as citizens have to pay all of the taxes we owe even though we might not agree with every government function that our tax dollars pay for (such as the Iraq War), a company must similarly pay for everything it is legally bound to provide for its employees, regardless of its owner's personal beliefs:
Yes, I have strong feelings about this decision, as should all women and anyone who supports equal rights for women. Let's hope that, much as Plessy was followed by Brown v. Board, that a future Supreme Court will overturn this abhorrent, misguided ruling.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Monday, July 7, 2014
Monday, December 30, 2013
NYTimes: (Middle) East Meets West
I recently saw the film "American Hustle" (quite good, I would recommend it), in which there's a con involving an Arab oil magnate in Atlantic City, and I thought of this New York Times article about Middle Eastern investors doing business in the West:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/islamic-banks-stuffed-with-cash-explore-partnerships-in-west/?hp
I find the crossroads of disparate cultures fascinating (possibly because I occupy one such intersection myself). There's always a certain contentious power dynamic, no matter how seamless each side wants their dance to be -- it's simply a matter of navigating cultural differences, and where there's difference, there's compromise to be reached.
In the cases mentioned in the above article, it's a matter of Islamic law, which to Westerners accustomed to separation of Church and state, seems antiquated and alien. Of course, considering that American bills still have "In God We Trust" printed on them, we're not 100% secular either. The United States is just a less homogenous society, which means that it's much harder to enshrine any particular religious practice as law without provoking backlash from other religions. In the Middle East, on the other hand, Islamic tenets -- such as the prohibition on interest payments, for example -- are so ingrained in the legal system, in everyone's day-to-day operations, that it would hardly seem out of the ordinary for Islamic companies to request certain religious accommodations as part and parcel of doing business.
Each side tends to think of itself as "normal" and everyone else as "other." That's just how we're wired--it was an evolutionary advantage, to be sure, and we've remained so long after our species abandoned the "small tribes roaming the Serengeti" lifestyle. It's a product of genes ensuring their own survival, methinks, and it has been the root cause of a lot of conflict through the centuries (and even today). But in a world where it is generally acknowledged that outright war between states is undesirable for all states in question (with certain notable exceptions, many of them precipitated by stateless organizations or religious factions), I suppose a lot of that cultural distance gets sublimated into power plays in negotiation (and similar, otherwise constructive enterprises).
I expect we'll see more and more of this in our increasingly globalized world. Today, it's not just governments that engage with each other -- it's entire populations that have to reconcile "us" and "them."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/islamic-banks-stuffed-with-cash-explore-partnerships-in-west/?hp
I find the crossroads of disparate cultures fascinating (possibly because I occupy one such intersection myself). There's always a certain contentious power dynamic, no matter how seamless each side wants their dance to be -- it's simply a matter of navigating cultural differences, and where there's difference, there's compromise to be reached.
In the cases mentioned in the above article, it's a matter of Islamic law, which to Westerners accustomed to separation of Church and state, seems antiquated and alien. Of course, considering that American bills still have "In God We Trust" printed on them, we're not 100% secular either. The United States is just a less homogenous society, which means that it's much harder to enshrine any particular religious practice as law without provoking backlash from other religions. In the Middle East, on the other hand, Islamic tenets -- such as the prohibition on interest payments, for example -- are so ingrained in the legal system, in everyone's day-to-day operations, that it would hardly seem out of the ordinary for Islamic companies to request certain religious accommodations as part and parcel of doing business.
Each side tends to think of itself as "normal" and everyone else as "other." That's just how we're wired--it was an evolutionary advantage, to be sure, and we've remained so long after our species abandoned the "small tribes roaming the Serengeti" lifestyle. It's a product of genes ensuring their own survival, methinks, and it has been the root cause of a lot of conflict through the centuries (and even today). But in a world where it is generally acknowledged that outright war between states is undesirable for all states in question (with certain notable exceptions, many of them precipitated by stateless organizations or religious factions), I suppose a lot of that cultural distance gets sublimated into power plays in negotiation (and similar, otherwise constructive enterprises).
I expect we'll see more and more of this in our increasingly globalized world. Today, it's not just governments that engage with each other -- it's entire populations that have to reconcile "us" and "them."
Thursday, December 26, 2013
BBC: Royal Pardon for Alan Turing (Finally!)
Two days ago, fifty-nine years after he was driven to suicide by discrimination and the overwhelming solitude of misunderstanding, Alan Turing finally received a royal pardon for violating the so-called "gross indecency" laws of his time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
Though his downfall was perhaps not as well-publicized and posthumously noted as that of Oscar Wilde in the century before his, it was no less a travesty for humanity. (And to think that society had not budged an inch on homosexuality between 1900 and 1954!) Turing was one of the finest cryptanalysts in history, as well as one of the founding fathers of modern computer science, and he was just forty-one years old when he died. One can't help but wonder what great and wonderful things he might have accomplished in his later years had he lived.
I am reminded, somewhat, of the story of Johnny Gunther, immortalized in his father's memoir Death Be Not Proud. Gunther was another extremely promising young man who died even younger, as a teenager, after a valiant struggle with brain cancer. Untimely "early" deaths, like those of Turing, Wilde, and Gunther seem especially tragic because of the injustice of the situation (particularly with Turing and Wilde, whose deaths were entirely preventable) and the abruptly curtailed possibilities of their later lives. Entirely due to human stupidity and prejudice, Turing was never afforded the opportunity to reach his full potential. I can only imagine, for a person brimming with ideas, curiosity, and the drive to contribute meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge, to hold in his hand the poisoned apple and think that such an exit was preferable to the future that lay before him...
The royal pardon is too little, too late, but at least some six decades later, we recognize and regret the human cruelty that hounded Alan Turing to his death, and move forward as a society with an awareness that we did not have before.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
Though his downfall was perhaps not as well-publicized and posthumously noted as that of Oscar Wilde in the century before his, it was no less a travesty for humanity. (And to think that society had not budged an inch on homosexuality between 1900 and 1954!) Turing was one of the finest cryptanalysts in history, as well as one of the founding fathers of modern computer science, and he was just forty-one years old when he died. One can't help but wonder what great and wonderful things he might have accomplished in his later years had he lived.
I am reminded, somewhat, of the story of Johnny Gunther, immortalized in his father's memoir Death Be Not Proud. Gunther was another extremely promising young man who died even younger, as a teenager, after a valiant struggle with brain cancer. Untimely "early" deaths, like those of Turing, Wilde, and Gunther seem especially tragic because of the injustice of the situation (particularly with Turing and Wilde, whose deaths were entirely preventable) and the abruptly curtailed possibilities of their later lives. Entirely due to human stupidity and prejudice, Turing was never afforded the opportunity to reach his full potential. I can only imagine, for a person brimming with ideas, curiosity, and the drive to contribute meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge, to hold in his hand the poisoned apple and think that such an exit was preferable to the future that lay before him...
The royal pardon is too little, too late, but at least some six decades later, we recognize and regret the human cruelty that hounded Alan Turing to his death, and move forward as a society with an awareness that we did not have before.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
io9: Clever Cosplayers Sued for Carpet Costumes
This seems like a hilarious take on camouflage/your usual Con cosplay:
http://io9.com/cosplayers-threatened-with-legal-action-for-hotel-carpe-1366152096
I can't say I'm terribly surprised that the cosplayers were hit with a cease-and-desist... I imagine that the hotel was, copyright infringement aside, probably afraid that the next DragonCon would see an entire regiment of cosplayers crawling about on the floor like that! (A shame it won't happen, though -- it would have been fun to see!)
http://io9.com/cosplayers-threatened-with-legal-action-for-hotel-carpe-1366152096
I can't say I'm terribly surprised that the cosplayers were hit with a cease-and-desist... I imagine that the hotel was, copyright infringement aside, probably afraid that the next DragonCon would see an entire regiment of cosplayers crawling about on the floor like that! (A shame it won't happen, though -- it would have been fun to see!)
Saturday, September 7, 2013
io9: Why Eugenics is a Bad Idea (aside from all the obvious moral reasons)
I recently read Paolo Bacigalupi's short story collection Pump Six and Other Stories, which is deliciously creepy and dystopian. That anthology, and this io9 article (which I read at around the same time), got me thinking about human genetic engineering on a macroscopic scale:
http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail
Our notions of eugenics can be roughly sorted into two categories: ways to optimize our species (for some agreed-upon and likely artificial optimal characteristics), and ways to eliminate genetic weaknesses (an extremely aggressive, sentient form of Darwinism). The former option represents selecting for a hypothetical upper bound, and the latter would be selecting against a lower bound.
When we talk about eugenics, most of us imagine the first option. The cultural connotation of the term "eugenics" includes the Holocaust, the book Brave New World, and the film "Gattaca" -- all of which involve human rights violations. In selecting for a certain ideal, a society makes mincemeat of the rights of those who fall below the arbitrary cut-off. Because eugenics usually comes with gross restrictions of free will -- and in many cases, murder -- we tend to see it as a purely moral evil. This usually brings about international intervention (the timeliness and effectiveness of said interventions being a different matter entirely), or at least the common recognition that such atrocities ought to be prevented.
The above io9 article lays out a few intuitive arguments against eugenics from a practical perspective, contending that -- morality aside -- it simply wouldn't be effective. They boil down to: imprecision, biodiversity, and the limitations of human foresight. (In essence, the short-term microscopic, the middle-term macroscopic, and the long-term in both. The article explains in further detail.) We don't know enough (and likely will never know enough) to get away with attempting to fashion our species in the image of some ideal -- not to mention that it would be impossible to get all seven billion of us to agree on said ideal in the first place. These are all, however, problems that arise when selecting for an upper bound, a hypothetical ideal specimen of humanity.
A (very) soft version of a scenario where we select against a lower bound is already in place, given amniocentesis and women's right to abort. Many women choose to abort after they receive an abnormal genetic diagnosis -- when the fetus has a genetic or congenital defect that would severely diminish the hypothetical child's lifespan or quality of life. The logic is that never existing -- which, for the record, is distinct from ceasing to exist after a period of existence -- is preferable to a life of pain and suffering with little ability to self-actualize. Self-actualization is incredibly important -- it's what makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals. This form of selection, which can be considered a mild and diffuse form of eugenics, increases the average human being's ability to self-actualize, thereby increasing (in a thought experiment where sentience is quantifiable on a scale) our species's average sentience through conscious choice by prospective parents -- a rough extension of natural sexual selection, in the way that most technologies exacerbate existing dilemmas and play upon existing quirks of human nature, rather than creating new ones where they didn't exist before. (To be clear, I recognize that I just exploded a can of worms -- that humans aren't generally more or less sentient than other humans, and that legally, ethically, metaphysically, &c. we all ought to be considered equally sentient, except in cases of limited ability to consent (i.e. children, mentally disabled persons), in which case laws are made to protect said people.)
The danger, then, is where the upper and lower bound options meet in the middle. (I'm resisting the obvious temptation to make some horrible joke about quantum mechanics and relativity here.) It's significant, therefore, that the former option is mandated by an external force and doesn't allow parents to meaningfully consent; the latter option is voluntarily initiated by the potential parents. The lower bound scenario never turns into the problematic upper bound scenario precisely because of this element of free will. The moment it moves from a bottom-up to a top-down approach -- when it veers too close to selection for an ideal, thereby impinging upon the rights of the sentient but non-ideal population -- it becomes the morally degenerate form of eugenics of genocide and dystopian science fiction. There lies the bright-line we should be aware of.
And that's all for now. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail
Our notions of eugenics can be roughly sorted into two categories: ways to optimize our species (for some agreed-upon and likely artificial optimal characteristics), and ways to eliminate genetic weaknesses (an extremely aggressive, sentient form of Darwinism). The former option represents selecting for a hypothetical upper bound, and the latter would be selecting against a lower bound.
When we talk about eugenics, most of us imagine the first option. The cultural connotation of the term "eugenics" includes the Holocaust, the book Brave New World, and the film "Gattaca" -- all of which involve human rights violations. In selecting for a certain ideal, a society makes mincemeat of the rights of those who fall below the arbitrary cut-off. Because eugenics usually comes with gross restrictions of free will -- and in many cases, murder -- we tend to see it as a purely moral evil. This usually brings about international intervention (the timeliness and effectiveness of said interventions being a different matter entirely), or at least the common recognition that such atrocities ought to be prevented.
The above io9 article lays out a few intuitive arguments against eugenics from a practical perspective, contending that -- morality aside -- it simply wouldn't be effective. They boil down to: imprecision, biodiversity, and the limitations of human foresight. (In essence, the short-term microscopic, the middle-term macroscopic, and the long-term in both. The article explains in further detail.) We don't know enough (and likely will never know enough) to get away with attempting to fashion our species in the image of some ideal -- not to mention that it would be impossible to get all seven billion of us to agree on said ideal in the first place. These are all, however, problems that arise when selecting for an upper bound, a hypothetical ideal specimen of humanity.
A (very) soft version of a scenario where we select against a lower bound is already in place, given amniocentesis and women's right to abort. Many women choose to abort after they receive an abnormal genetic diagnosis -- when the fetus has a genetic or congenital defect that would severely diminish the hypothetical child's lifespan or quality of life. The logic is that never existing -- which, for the record, is distinct from ceasing to exist after a period of existence -- is preferable to a life of pain and suffering with little ability to self-actualize. Self-actualization is incredibly important -- it's what makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals. This form of selection, which can be considered a mild and diffuse form of eugenics, increases the average human being's ability to self-actualize, thereby increasing (in a thought experiment where sentience is quantifiable on a scale) our species's average sentience through conscious choice by prospective parents -- a rough extension of natural sexual selection, in the way that most technologies exacerbate existing dilemmas and play upon existing quirks of human nature, rather than creating new ones where they didn't exist before. (To be clear, I recognize that I just exploded a can of worms -- that humans aren't generally more or less sentient than other humans, and that legally, ethically, metaphysically, &c. we all ought to be considered equally sentient, except in cases of limited ability to consent (i.e. children, mentally disabled persons), in which case laws are made to protect said people.)
The danger, then, is where the upper and lower bound options meet in the middle. (I'm resisting the obvious temptation to make some horrible joke about quantum mechanics and relativity here.) It's significant, therefore, that the former option is mandated by an external force and doesn't allow parents to meaningfully consent; the latter option is voluntarily initiated by the potential parents. The lower bound scenario never turns into the problematic upper bound scenario precisely because of this element of free will. The moment it moves from a bottom-up to a top-down approach -- when it veers too close to selection for an ideal, thereby impinging upon the rights of the sentient but non-ideal population -- it becomes the morally degenerate form of eugenics of genocide and dystopian science fiction. There lies the bright-line we should be aware of.
And that's all for now. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Monday, August 12, 2013
The Economist: On Pollution, China is Better and Worse Than We Think
I'm reading Jared Diamond's excellent book Collapse (you know it's important when it has its own Wikipedia page!), which devotes a whole section to the real sociopolitical dangers modern China faces as a result of environmental fragility and degradation. I rather serendipitously happened upon this article in The Economist, which discusses developments therein (both good and bad) since Collapse was published in 2005:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21583245-china-worlds-worst-polluter-largest-investor-green-energy-its-rise-will-have
I subsequently ended up thinking a lot about the subject, so I thought I'd muse about it in prose. (Sometimes -- very occasionally -- I miss writing essays for college history classes...) This post is rather long, so I've put it below the cut:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21583245-china-worlds-worst-polluter-largest-investor-green-energy-its-rise-will-have
I subsequently ended up thinking a lot about the subject, so I thought I'd muse about it in prose. (Sometimes -- very occasionally -- I miss writing essays for college history classes...) This post is rather long, so I've put it below the cut:
Monday, February 11, 2013
NYTimes: Richard III, Lost and Found
In recent news -- making both archaeological and regular news headlines around the world -- the bones of Richard III were discovered under a parking lot in Leicester:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?hp
I'm inclined to be more sympathetic towards Richard III than literature portrays him (Shakespeare's play was an instrument of the Tudor smear campaign against the Plantagenets). He probably suffered from "younger sibling syndrome," as did many "spare heirs" of monarchs in the Middle Ages -- see Scar vs. Mufasa in The Lion King (and play "spot the Shakespeare references"). This was also probably exacerbated by his uninspiring physical appearance -- see Tyrion Lannister in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. (Especially in those days, physical birth defects were seen as portents of ill fortune.) Richard came by the throne in a slightly roundabout way that involved some unsavory tactics; certainly, he can't have been completely innocent in the Princes in the Tower episode. But he was by and large a competent administrator who contributed significantly to the nascent English legal system and, notably, lifted most public and private censorship of written work -- not a move to be taken lightly, especially given the political turmoil surrounding his ascension and reign. He was ruthless, to be sure, sometimes excessively so, but his were much more violent times. (Nasty, brutish, and short would be about right.) Richard III was not, among his peers, particularly remarkable in his ruthlessness -- which the Tudors, Shakespeare, and partisan historians conveniently forget.
Anyhow. I imagine it must have been a fascinating experience for the modern-day descendants of Richard III, a few of whom contributed some DNA to the project.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-the-third-bones.html?hp
I'm inclined to be more sympathetic towards Richard III than literature portrays him (Shakespeare's play was an instrument of the Tudor smear campaign against the Plantagenets). He probably suffered from "younger sibling syndrome," as did many "spare heirs" of monarchs in the Middle Ages -- see Scar vs. Mufasa in The Lion King (and play "spot the Shakespeare references"). This was also probably exacerbated by his uninspiring physical appearance -- see Tyrion Lannister in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. (Especially in those days, physical birth defects were seen as portents of ill fortune.) Richard came by the throne in a slightly roundabout way that involved some unsavory tactics; certainly, he can't have been completely innocent in the Princes in the Tower episode. But he was by and large a competent administrator who contributed significantly to the nascent English legal system and, notably, lifted most public and private censorship of written work -- not a move to be taken lightly, especially given the political turmoil surrounding his ascension and reign. He was ruthless, to be sure, sometimes excessively so, but his were much more violent times. (Nasty, brutish, and short would be about right.) Richard III was not, among his peers, particularly remarkable in his ruthlessness -- which the Tudors, Shakespeare, and partisan historians conveniently forget.
Anyhow. I imagine it must have been a fascinating experience for the modern-day descendants of Richard III, a few of whom contributed some DNA to the project.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
BBC: Parisian Women Legally Allowed to Wear the Pants
There are a surprising number of antiquated laws in the books, in France and in any country (including the US) with a long legal history. A lot of these are along the lines of "morality" laws, faith-based laws, sumptuary laws, &c. -- laws that regulated behavior and are no longer compatible with modern notions of freedom of expression. Most of these were buried in reams of text and forgotten about as times changed and attitudes modernized, so nobody ever got around to changing them. Of course, because they seem so silly, few of these laws are actually enforced these days, which allows them to remain in the books until someone stumbles upon them, as in the case with Parisian women's pants (Trouser pants, not... underwear pants. In France, I imagine underwear might have a whole different set of laws, or lack thereof.)
Anyhow, there was apparently a ban on Parisian women wearing pants that was never stricken from the books until now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21329269
It reminds me of this book, which for some reason has been sitting on my sister's shelf for a good many years.
Anyhow, there was apparently a ban on Parisian women wearing pants that was never stricken from the books until now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21329269
It reminds me of this book, which for some reason has been sitting on my sister's shelf for a good many years.
Monday, February 4, 2013
The Economist: Is the EU the Holy Roman Empire 2.0?
A thought-provoking historical perspective on the current economic and political situation in the EU:
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568659-old-empire-offers-surprising-lessons-european-union-today-european-disunion-done
Several such entities have been attempted in Europe through its long history, from the classical Roman Empire to today's European Union. Though the continent derives some unity from its vaunted Greco-Roman roots, it contains a great deal of diversity in terms of language, ethnicity, culture -- all the necessary components of national identity. There are, in fact, a number of key differences (some articulated in the above article, some not) between the current EU and comparable historical entities (interestingly, they all begin with 'c'). Here's my (history buff's) perspective (it's longer than usual, so I've put it under the cut):
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568659-old-empire-offers-surprising-lessons-european-union-today-european-disunion-done
Several such entities have been attempted in Europe through its long history, from the classical Roman Empire to today's European Union. Though the continent derives some unity from its vaunted Greco-Roman roots, it contains a great deal of diversity in terms of language, ethnicity, culture -- all the necessary components of national identity. There are, in fact, a number of key differences (some articulated in the above article, some not) between the current EU and comparable historical entities (interestingly, they all begin with 'c'). Here's my (history buff's) perspective (it's longer than usual, so I've put it under the cut):
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Artists on PIPA and SOPA
There's been a lot of buzz about PIPA and SOPA, especially here in Silicon Valley. The online protests, most notably the Wikipedia blackout, have gotten a lot of people interested, if not involved. A perspective that hasn't gotten as much attention as it should, methinks, is that of the artists themselves, whose intellectual property is what's ultimately at stake. This (found via Neil Gaiman's blog) is worth reading:
http://stopthewall.us/artists/
They say it better than I ever could -- internet freedom means free publicity. I'll just add that I've discovered some of my favorite songs and musicians (such as Heather Dale and Jonathan Coulton) via YouTube, and some excellent television online (such as the BBC's Sherlock). If it weren't for the internet, if not for YouTube, I would not have gone and bought a Heather Dale album on iTunes, or bought some tracks from Jonathan Coulton's website. That would have been a net loss for the music industry. (Yes, I acknowledge that YouTube, being more akin to a streaming service than a downloading site, isn't necessarily what people mean when they say "pirating music.")
The greater part of the illegal download problem in America, and in the Western world at large, is not piracy so much as accessibility. By and large, we in the developed world don't balk at paying $0.99 for a track on iTunes, or $9.99 for an e-book; compare those to a $12 CD with about a dozen songs on it or an $8 (mass-market) or $12 (trade) paperback. What is problematic, rather, is when music, books, or films are not readily available for purchase -- leading those who really want to obtain said materials to seek other means to get them. (This, as far as I'm aware, often becomes an issue where foreign rights and such are concerned.) By and large, if there is a convenient venue for purchase at a fair price, Americans will pay for the electronic media they consume.
A side-note to the above: one of the truly significant illegal download problems in the developed world, is that of children or teenagers who don't have their own source of income. In the past, they would have asked their parents for money, or saved up their allowances, or done a bit of babysitting in order to purchase the media they want. I'm sure many adults today have fond childhood memories of going to the record store, for example, and buying that album they wanted with their hard-earned cash. Nowadays, it's much easier to bypass the work required to get the money to buy books or music by illegally downloading. I agree that children who don't grow up with a certain moral framework in which content creators should be compensated for their work might one-day become income-earning adults who pirate all of their media despite having the funds to pay for it. But in that case, much as children who commit petty crimes (vandalism and disruption of the peace come to mind) are generally granted more legal leeway than adults who do the same, I don't think that PIPA and SOPA are the right tools to use to crack down on underage media pirates. That's in the realm of killing an ant with a sledgehammer. Also, I would argue that children and teenagers without income fall somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum of "consumers who can afford to pay for all the content they want" and "consumers who would not consume content if it cost money."
In other, mostly developing countries, the concept of copyright is still rather hazy in the public consciousness. Photocopying -- or pirating -- of textbooks, DVDs, &c. is the norm, rather than the exception. Citizens of many of these countries wouldn't buy these products even if they were impossible to pirate -- they're prohibitively expensive. If people in, say, China were prevented in any meaningful way from illegally accessing copyrighted American media, they would just turn to other shows, other books, other music -- non-American media. The income for artists and media companies wouldn't substantially increase as a result of the largely outwards-facing bills. In these markets, increasing profits would mean substantially lowering prices, perhaps to a point where there would be no point in producing said content for these consumers, because it would not be cost-effective.
While PIPA and SOPA are largely well-intentioned -- an attempt to secure for creative individuals the rewards of their work -- they're very problematically written. They were written by politicians -- not the artists they're supposed to protect, or the technologists who are supposed to enforce it. In their current incarnation, they cause more harm than good, especially where censorship and due process are concerned. Additionally, as most of my techie friends would tell you, meaningful enforcement would be basically impossible. As the internet has become an essential component of life in this country and around the world, the law needs to reflect an understanding of how to govern the web. Someone in Washington really ought to put the lawmakers, the technologists, the media companies, and the artists all in the same room to hammer out a solution that addresses everyone's needs and comes with a thorough understanding of current technology. That's the only way it'll work.
http://stopthewall.us/artists/
They say it better than I ever could -- internet freedom means free publicity. I'll just add that I've discovered some of my favorite songs and musicians (such as Heather Dale and Jonathan Coulton) via YouTube, and some excellent television online (such as the BBC's Sherlock). If it weren't for the internet, if not for YouTube, I would not have gone and bought a Heather Dale album on iTunes, or bought some tracks from Jonathan Coulton's website. That would have been a net loss for the music industry. (Yes, I acknowledge that YouTube, being more akin to a streaming service than a downloading site, isn't necessarily what people mean when they say "pirating music.")
The greater part of the illegal download problem in America, and in the Western world at large, is not piracy so much as accessibility. By and large, we in the developed world don't balk at paying $0.99 for a track on iTunes, or $9.99 for an e-book; compare those to a $12 CD with about a dozen songs on it or an $8 (mass-market) or $12 (trade) paperback. What is problematic, rather, is when music, books, or films are not readily available for purchase -- leading those who really want to obtain said materials to seek other means to get them. (This, as far as I'm aware, often becomes an issue where foreign rights and such are concerned.) By and large, if there is a convenient venue for purchase at a fair price, Americans will pay for the electronic media they consume.
A side-note to the above: one of the truly significant illegal download problems in the developed world, is that of children or teenagers who don't have their own source of income. In the past, they would have asked their parents for money, or saved up their allowances, or done a bit of babysitting in order to purchase the media they want. I'm sure many adults today have fond childhood memories of going to the record store, for example, and buying that album they wanted with their hard-earned cash. Nowadays, it's much easier to bypass the work required to get the money to buy books or music by illegally downloading. I agree that children who don't grow up with a certain moral framework in which content creators should be compensated for their work might one-day become income-earning adults who pirate all of their media despite having the funds to pay for it. But in that case, much as children who commit petty crimes (vandalism and disruption of the peace come to mind) are generally granted more legal leeway than adults who do the same, I don't think that PIPA and SOPA are the right tools to use to crack down on underage media pirates. That's in the realm of killing an ant with a sledgehammer. Also, I would argue that children and teenagers without income fall somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum of "consumers who can afford to pay for all the content they want" and "consumers who would not consume content if it cost money."
In other, mostly developing countries, the concept of copyright is still rather hazy in the public consciousness. Photocopying -- or pirating -- of textbooks, DVDs, &c. is the norm, rather than the exception. Citizens of many of these countries wouldn't buy these products even if they were impossible to pirate -- they're prohibitively expensive. If people in, say, China were prevented in any meaningful way from illegally accessing copyrighted American media, they would just turn to other shows, other books, other music -- non-American media. The income for artists and media companies wouldn't substantially increase as a result of the largely outwards-facing bills. In these markets, increasing profits would mean substantially lowering prices, perhaps to a point where there would be no point in producing said content for these consumers, because it would not be cost-effective.
While PIPA and SOPA are largely well-intentioned -- an attempt to secure for creative individuals the rewards of their work -- they're very problematically written. They were written by politicians -- not the artists they're supposed to protect, or the technologists who are supposed to enforce it. In their current incarnation, they cause more harm than good, especially where censorship and due process are concerned. Additionally, as most of my techie friends would tell you, meaningful enforcement would be basically impossible. As the internet has become an essential component of life in this country and around the world, the law needs to reflect an understanding of how to govern the web. Someone in Washington really ought to put the lawmakers, the technologists, the media companies, and the artists all in the same room to hammer out a solution that addresses everyone's needs and comes with a thorough understanding of current technology. That's the only way it'll work.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
NYTimes: New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!
Happened just yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html
Needless to say, it's a triumph for my home state. I'm still a little shocked that it happened in New York before it did in California (that Prop. 8 fiasco, and all). But mostly, I'm proud. I'm proud that after the long, hard-fought struggle, they -- we, the people -- made it happen.
A brief history of said struggle: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?ref=global-home
I have to hand it to the governor, to those Republicans who voted in favor of the bill despite their party line, to the Democrats (all but one), to the donors and organizers and everyone who worked so hard for the dreams and natural rights of a downtrodden minority. I wish I were here, then. But that's small potatoes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html
Needless to say, it's a triumph for my home state. I'm still a little shocked that it happened in New York before it did in California (that Prop. 8 fiasco, and all). But mostly, I'm proud. I'm proud that after the long, hard-fought struggle, they -- we, the people -- made it happen.
A brief history of said struggle: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?ref=global-home
I have to hand it to the governor, to those Republicans who voted in favor of the bill despite their party line, to the Democrats (all but one), to the donors and organizers and everyone who worked so hard for the dreams and natural rights of a downtrodden minority. I wish I were here, then. But that's small potatoes.
Monday, May 30, 2011
NYTimes: Could Conjoined Twins Share a Mind?
A fascinating article I found this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/could-conjoined-twins-share-a-mind.html?_r=1&hpw
It's rather long, but well worth the read. Craniopagus twins are probably the most interesting sort of conjoined twins, in that it affects not only their physical existence, but also their mental independence. Imagine being (somewhat) mentally linked to your sibling! (That's a scary thought, given me and my sister -- the world is not prepared for such madness.) It also opens the door to all sorts of ethical dilemmas (how would you legally treat them as two distinct persons, &c.?).
It seems like it would make excellent fodder for a novel (I'm sure it's already been written about.) -- anyone have a good book about craniopagus twins to recommend?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/could-conjoined-twins-share-a-mind.html?_r=1&hpw
It's rather long, but well worth the read. Craniopagus twins are probably the most interesting sort of conjoined twins, in that it affects not only their physical existence, but also their mental independence. Imagine being (somewhat) mentally linked to your sibling! (That's a scary thought, given me and my sister -- the world is not prepared for such madness.) It also opens the door to all sorts of ethical dilemmas (how would you legally treat them as two distinct persons, &c.?).
It seems like it would make excellent fodder for a novel (I'm sure it's already been written about.) -- anyone have a good book about craniopagus twins to recommend?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
NYTimes: Blog Gives Superheroes and Supervillains Their Day in Court
This is a really cool concept:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/books/21lawyers.html?ref=books
I'm a fan of both urban fantasy and political theory (not as unlikely a combination as one might believe, as evidenced above), so this is awesome. I'd say, any science fiction writer, even those not operating in pseudo-real world conditions, should keep an eye on this; it should aid in creating realistic political systems, not to mention, yielding a plot bunny or two...
Also, Dr. Horrible. Need I say more?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/books/21lawyers.html?ref=books
I'm a fan of both urban fantasy and political theory (not as unlikely a combination as one might believe, as evidenced above), so this is awesome. I'd say, any science fiction writer, even those not operating in pseudo-real world conditions, should keep an eye on this; it should aid in creating realistic political systems, not to mention, yielding a plot bunny or two...
Also, Dr. Horrible. Need I say more?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Today
is the 85th anniversary of the Scopes Trial. This is one of the most famous trials in American history, pitting legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow against populist crusader William Jennings Bryan in a battle over academic freedom and separation of church and state. (To anyone who read Inherit the Wind -- which is, by the way, a wonderful book -- this may sound very familiar. It should.) Darrow's defeat was a tragedy.
Of course, without his defeat, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would never have been founded, and the world would have been the poorer for it.
Of course, without his defeat, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would never have been founded, and the world would have been the poorer for it.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
NYTimes: Russia's "Illegals"
This could be fuel for more than a few thriller novels -- or James Bond films (my father has a slight obsession with them):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/europe/30sleepers.html?hpw
Deep-cover spies seem rather anachronistic in this day and age -- a relic of the Cold War, perhaps -- but I can see why the idea is appealing. It's like the way small girls love having "secrets" in the schoolyard, secrets they can deny their classmates and giggle about amongst themselves, or how small boys are attracted to the idea of having a pistol hidden in the lining of an expensive suit. It's the same impulse that explains, methinks, my love of Sherlock Holmes and Dumas's musketeers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/europe/30sleepers.html?hpw
Deep-cover spies seem rather anachronistic in this day and age -- a relic of the Cold War, perhaps -- but I can see why the idea is appealing. It's like the way small girls love having "secrets" in the schoolyard, secrets they can deny their classmates and giggle about amongst themselves, or how small boys are attracted to the idea of having a pistol hidden in the lining of an expensive suit. It's the same impulse that explains, methinks, my love of Sherlock Holmes and Dumas's musketeers.
Friday, June 4, 2010
A Good Life, without God(s)
This just about sums up my take on religion (or at least, on the possible repercussions of atheism):
Would I rather remain in hell for all eternity? Obviously, from a practical standpoint, fire and brimstone and torture isn't my idea of fun. But continuing in the above vein of political science, all these tortures are the Christian God's way of punishing sinners. Cruel and unusual punishment aside, notice that none of these tortures are the Devil's doing. They are the work of a being who, having cast the undesirables from his kingdom, insists upon punishing them in somebody else's territory. (If you try to claim that hell is a vassal territory, albeit gone rogue, by virtue of Satan's lesser magnitude of power, I will laugh, and point out that a state in rebellion for however many millenia without active attempts at reconquest or administration by the claimant state has de facto sovereignty. Moreover, God has violated His social contract with the denizens of Hell by actively detracting from their welfare. I suppose one could claim that hell is something like a penal colony, but the literature describing hell as "evil" and governed by a rogue, hostile entity suggests that for all that God quarantines sinners there -- and without due process, mind you -- it is not actually under God's control.) Anyhow, the Biblical (or at least, Old Testament) God basically seems to be a very powerful egomaniac who demands worship and compliance with his (albeit well-intentioned) rule. Quote Plato at me all you want, but I'm not sure that in this case, the wise and benevolent dictator is really all that benevolent.
Hmm... that was perhaps more than I'd intended to write when beginning this post. I suppose this counts as an increase in self-generated content? Expect this to continue, I'd say, especially over the summer, when I won't be writing papers about Revolutionary French politics and the Enlightenment for classes; I'll need an outlet.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
~Marcus Aurelius (apocryphal)I strive to live a good and worthy life because I believe in honor, in beauty, and in helping the less fortunate. I am an atheist because I believe in science and its methods of proof; I will believe it when I see it (or evidence thereof). (In a similar vein, I also believe in Occam's Razor -- that is, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. I see no need to create a mythology to explain natural phenomena if it is plain that science is progressively explaining more and more of said phenomena -- I trust that science will eventually be able to explain enough to satisfy me, and in the meantime, I am content to wait.) If there are indeed gods, and if they find these two tenants to be somehow contradictory, then I would not be able to reconcile my own morals to the rule of such beings, and therefore would not want to abide, for all eternity, by their laws. (Yes, I just applied social contract theory to heaven.)
Would I rather remain in hell for all eternity? Obviously, from a practical standpoint, fire and brimstone and torture isn't my idea of fun. But continuing in the above vein of political science, all these tortures are the Christian God's way of punishing sinners. Cruel and unusual punishment aside, notice that none of these tortures are the Devil's doing. They are the work of a being who, having cast the undesirables from his kingdom, insists upon punishing them in somebody else's territory. (If you try to claim that hell is a vassal territory, albeit gone rogue, by virtue of Satan's lesser magnitude of power, I will laugh, and point out that a state in rebellion for however many millenia without active attempts at reconquest or administration by the claimant state has de facto sovereignty. Moreover, God has violated His social contract with the denizens of Hell by actively detracting from their welfare. I suppose one could claim that hell is something like a penal colony, but the literature describing hell as "evil" and governed by a rogue, hostile entity suggests that for all that God quarantines sinners there -- and without due process, mind you -- it is not actually under God's control.) Anyhow, the Biblical (or at least, Old Testament) God basically seems to be a very powerful egomaniac who demands worship and compliance with his (albeit well-intentioned) rule. Quote Plato at me all you want, but I'm not sure that in this case, the wise and benevolent dictator is really all that benevolent.
Hmm... that was perhaps more than I'd intended to write when beginning this post. I suppose this counts as an increase in self-generated content? Expect this to continue, I'd say, especially over the summer, when I won't be writing papers about Revolutionary French politics and the Enlightenment for classes; I'll need an outlet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)