I am protesting SOPA and PIPA not because I think that information wants to be free (in fact, I spoke with Information and it hates being personified and has no volition or wishes) or that I think stealing others’ works is acceptable in any sense. Rather the acts as currently written are too vague, do not give opportunity for due process, and will do nothing to stop piracy, the intended goal of the acts. Pirates Thieves will find a way around the restrictions and the only ones affected will be the average user like you and me.

So if this sort of activism annoys you, relax. It will all be back to normal tomorrow and you can blissfully ignore the issue again. Until you can’t.

 

1. Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) | Protect IP Act (PIPA).

Rather than stick to the core message so well articulated in the cartoon to the right, this leaderless revolution has sprawled into lists of ridiculous demands to such an extent that now Stephen Colbert (a supporter of the original movement) is even poking fun at it. The movement seems to be spinning out of control and becoming the second chance for hippie high school seniors and college freshmen like the “elected spokespeople,” Justin Wedes and “Ketchup,” who appear to be bent on making up for the fact they weren’t elected Student Body President. Or to put it as my wife put it, the current wave of OWS protesters:

…are identifying themselves as the “99%”, but are not demanding that the “1%” end world hunger. They are asking for their college tuition to be paid. They are asking for their credit card debt to be forgiven. They are asking for privileges that only the world’s wealthiest 1% enjoy, and they want it for free.

By making demands of “free college education” (elite schools of course, not state schools), “open borders migration (anyone can travel anywhere to work and live),” and “Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all (Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books”),” the OWS movement leaves itself open to ridicule and charges of naïveté, disorganization, idealism lacking practicality, and insensitivity to those who are trulysuffering around the world.

 

CHE has a very interesting little piece about presentations given at TED conferences. He contrasts two speakers, one who “got the whole nerdy hipster thing going” and another who wore a blazer (but cut brains into thin slices like deli meats. I was the MC for TEDxPSU last year at Penn State and I may offer a presentation this year, so I have been thinking about what makes a good presentation myself.

Part of the enthusiasm for these talks is the fervor of the moment, face it, TED is a geek rally, a sort of Burning Man for those who don’t want to get naked, paint themselves, and do pot (or at least none of those things while sitting in an auditorium). Still, there is great value in TED talks, they can be marvelous gems and I have found them very useful in classes. But should we go for the O or the HMMMM. I think I would rather make folks think, have them still sitting in their chairs saying to themselves, “wait a minute, he might have a point.”

Slavin [hipster] got a standing ovation, while Jones [brain butcher] received fairly enthusiastic but still-seated applause.

So what does that indicate? Well, here’s what a blog post on the TEDActive site has to say:

The standing ovation is the original test of crowd wisdom. The audience reaction (and soon the online reaction) seems like a good predictor for which ideas at TED will stick and have a lasting impact on large scale.

Really? I enjoyed Slavin’s presentation and thought it was entertaining and insightful. I enjoyed Jones’s presentation, too—though, to be honest, not as much because he’s stiffer on stage. But the dude is thin-slicing the brain, people. I’m going to argue that what he’s up to has the potential to have a more lasting impact on a larger scale than the clever stylings of an app maker.

The rise of TED in recent years is amazing. Asking smart people from diverse fields to present their most brilliant ideas in 18 minutes is, in itself, brilliant. It’s awesome that there can be viral videos, like this one, that are about education and creativity rather than overly dramatic chipmunks.

But I think whether TEDsters leap from their seats and slap their palms together says more about the polish of the performer than the staying power of a particular idea.

 

Perhaps we should have a new category, “The National BiblioEnquirer” for those who post solely about other stories that inflame, irritate, or otherwise make their undergarments get scrunched into uncomfortable shapes.

Anyone remember Phil. 4:8?

 

Appalling: The Supreme Court Sides with Westboro Baptist…

Disgusting.  Freedom of speech should never trump what’s morally right.  Never.  The Court blew it yet again.

(Christian Salafia agrees with him as well.) I replied via twitter pointing out that such was the price of free speech. Jim respectfully disagreed saying, “hate speech isn’t covered by the first amendment.” And then posted later today,

Many American Christians utter the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ with more love and adoration than they have ever cited Scripture.  ’Freedom of speech’ as a dictum is the new American Idol.  And it is idolatrous precisely because too often it trumps Scripture and silences its voice (in a most peculiar and ironic twisting).

Those who know me certainly know that I am not one of those whom Jim is describing (and to be clear, I am not suggesting that I am in his mind as he wrote this). My view of Scripture is very high indeed and freedom of speech is not an idol for me. But Jim has some facts wrong and all of it is ironic given recent comments regarding the tenor and tone of Jim’s own blog.

Freedom of speech has routinely defended religious expression rather than silencing its voice. That is not to say that the position has not been challenged, but individual rights to preach, proclaim, and post Scripture has regularly been upheld by the Supreme Court through the invocation of the First Amendment.

Second, as I said on twitter responding to Jim, Westboro’s speech is hateful but it is not hate speech. Partly this is a tautology, because the Supreme Court ruled that what they have done is acceptable behavior/speech, it is by definition protected speech. (“Hate speech” and whether it is not also protected speech is still much debated, so to say that it is not protected under the First Amendment is not yet proved.)

It is almost a maxim now but the speech that most offends us and that we most dislike is that which most needs protection. Consider Jim’s own blog. As observed in recent debate, there are many who consider his posts hateful, ugly, and offensive and would just as soon see him close shop again. Of course Jim rightly responds, “don’t read it.” The irony of this is clear for all to see, I will comment no more on that.

Finally, I feel I must make this absolutely clear: I abhor what Westboro does and I find no justification for it. My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the fallen soldiers. The death of any loved one is tragic and wrenching no matter when and under what circumstances occurs.

 

Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

The article goes on to point out two examples where scholars pointed to social difficulties or challenges (women in higher ed and single mother homes in African American communities) and then were labelled pariahs by the academic world because their analysis did not fit with the dogma of the day. Their positions have since been largely vindicated and, more importantly from the perspective of those concerned with making positive change in the world, valuable time was lost in terms of helping others because the warnings of these scholars were ignored.

The challenge for the academy is, of course, to provide a forum for all thoughts and ideas. Every doctrine and dogma ought to be open to challenge, even this assertion.

I hope you will read the whole article and discuss it on your blog, here in the comments, or simply with those around you.

Location:Oxford,United Kingdom

 

Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.

The term “blood libel” has very specific meaning, referring to the medieval accusation against Jews that they used Gentile blood (particularly of children) in mixing matzah for Passover. This libel was used to generate rage and anger against the Jews resulting in violent and deadly attacks. Many have thus criticized Palin for using this term that is “so fraught with pain in Jewish history.”

So why this post? Because Alan Dershowitz, not known as a defender of the Second Amendment (but of the First) nor of Palin, has come out defending Palin’s use of “blood libel” in sociolinguistic terms. Yes, it has an historical meaning, but that meaning has changed, particularly in the US.

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

I still find Palin’s use of the term problematic and I think the rhetoric on both sides abominable (I’m looking at you too Mr. Olbermann). That is why I read news now (thank you iPad for making that so much more convenient on the road) so that I do not have to listen to the invective and mindless spin that comes incessantly from all sides.

In that vein, you should definitely listen/read this excellent two-part piece on “objectivity” in the media by David Folkenflik at NPR.

So my linguistically inclined friends, judgment on actual political views aside, is “blood libel” a specific, historic term or does it now have a “broader metaphorical” meaning?

UPDATE: WashPo has a fairly good summary in their “Fact Checker” of the issue and links to those running down how often the term is used in political discourse across the political divide.

 

Working out their own variation on the politically charged sci-fi subgenre pioneered by District 9, filmmakers David Gidali and Itay Gross inject a dark dose of civilian paranoia into an Israeli setting with their striking new short film, Secular Quarter #3.

Juiced up by UFOs, the visual-effects-rich clip (embedded above) pictures an alien intervention that takes place in a slightly futuristic Jerusalem ridden with walls and dome-shaped cages.

Avatar producer Jon Landau and other judges at the Jerusalem 2111 International Animation Competition awarded the festival’s $10,000 first prize to Secular Quarter #3 director Gidali and cinematographer Gross for doing the best job of creating an “urban sci-fi vision of the city of Jerusalem” as it might look a century from now.

You can see other entries from the competition at Wired.com.