30 July 2012

Organizational power

I was struck by this passage in a kvetch from Sean Oliver about the new Apple Genius TV ads:

Collateral like this happens when there is no creative vision coming down from senior leaders. When leaders delegate the vision downward, middle managers end up having to make the final call, but in almost all cases they don’t have the power to do so alone. So, they go about securing buy-off from multiple teams, and the result was leadership by committee.

I'd say this principle applies not just to advertising collateral but to almost everything the organization does. My interests lie in product & design, so I see this pattern all of the time in that domain, but I feel confident in presuming that it applies to just about anything an organization does.

Oliver implies that organizations need more creative vision coming down from senior leaders. That's great when you can get it, but I propose a better alternative: empower those middle managers so that they can make the final call alone.

27 July 2012

Diversity of tactics

Facebook event discussion:



Yeah, that's the problem right there.


Update: More from Eric Throw Molotov:

Let's be clear about something here.

Every time the POLICE MURDER SOMEONE and there is a call to action, you have a certain group of people that have their own agenda and are not interested in anything but preserving the existing social order be it the police state or the everyday normal function of capitalism. Watch out for these people:

  1. Peace Police: nu-protester/stranger who uses violence against anyone in order to maintain the safety of the police, banks, corporations and the mass media.
  2. Conspiracy Theorists: nu-protester/stranger who assumes anyone challenging the system outside of the law is not a revolutionary but somehow an agent of the state. Just because you don't believe in the American Dream. Just because you don't believe in government. Just because you hate the capitalist system. Just because you won't follow governments rule and refuse to obey the American way of doing things. These people really need to WAKE THE FUCK UP put down the Alex Jones garbage and pick up the ------"St. Paul Principles". Seriously. Wake the fuck up!
  3. Aggressive Pacifists: people who are quick to shutdown their emotions against cops and direct their emotions at those who use direction action and condemn anyone who does not do the same when ever some fucked up shit like this happens where cops kill and you know the outcome will be a slap on the wrist unless there is backlash on the street.

    (I have a question? ) What brings you nu-people out here thinking you can control other people and snitch and turn people in? It looks to me like you are on a mission to defend the interests of the police by scaring anyone who dare to rise up and then when the police get off the hook, you subtly walk back into the shadows and we never hear from you again until the illusion of peace is broken by the sound of a gun sending a bullet into someones head or back and more rounds of projectiles for anyone who dare questions that sort of conduct. NO ASSHOLE, THE REAL QUESTION IS WHO THE FUCK DO YOU WORK FOR? You're the one shouting down at people who are angry at the police instead of shouting at the police WHO ARE THE REAL FUCKING TARGET!
  4. Standard Pacifists: these type don't really bother anyone from the radical community but don't really help either. They are the least of your worries.

This is the world that we are being forced to live in and it sucks so bad I wish I could wish it away somehow but it is always going to be here so long as we allow it to exist. I feel the same frustration as all of you out there in Anaheim and all those who truly believe there is no way to co-exist with the state because it is the enemy no doubt about that anymore. It does not work to keep you safe. The police are not your friends. Anyone protecting them right now is either a snitch or a careless idiot.

Good luck to everyone else out there tonight. Times are rough and their only going to get worse and the police grow more hostile everyday knowing this system can't sustain it self any longer. FUCK COPS! FUCK THE SYSTEM! FUCK THE USA!

Syrio Forel's prayer



There is only one god.

And his name is Death.

And there is only one thing we say to Death.

Not today.

19 July 2012

Peak Oil is wrong, alas

George Monbiot reports that there's plenty of oil after all, if we are willing to spend enough money and wreck enough of the environment.

The automatic correction resource depletion destroying the machine that was driving it, that many environmentalists foresaw, is not going to happen. The problem we face is not that there is too little oil, but that there is too much.

We have confused threats to the living planet with threats to industrial civilisation. They are not, in the first instance, the same thing. Industry and consumer capitalism, powered by abundant oil supplies, are more resilient than many of the natural systems they threaten. The great profusion of life in the past, fossilised in the form of flammable carbon, now jeopardises the great profusion of life in the present.

There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world’s most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.



Update: A lot more information about the data and the implications.

12 July 2012

SMOUXD

Programmers often talk about a “SMOP”. It's an exceedingly useful expression. Here's Eric Raymond's instructive Jargon File on the subject:

Simple (or Small) Matter of Programming
  1. A piece of code, not yet written, whose anticipated length is significantly greater than its complexity. Used to refer to a program that could obviously be written, but is not worth the trouble. Also used ironically to imply that a difficult problem can be easily solved because a program can be written to do it; the irony is that it is very clear that writing such a program will be a great deal of work. “It's easy to enhance a FORTRAN compiler to compile COBOL as well; it's just a SMOP.”
  2. Often used ironically by the intended victim when a suggestion for a program is made which seems easy to the suggester, but is obviously (to the victim) a lot of work.
Compare minor detail.

It's a handy expression for an interaction designer to know and use. If a designer says things like I'd rather not break the user's address into a bunch of fields in the UI; let's provide a single big open text box and parse it into name, street, city, state, and zip on the back end and then adds it will be a Simple Matter Of Programming, taking care to pronounce the Capital Letters, the development team will appreciate the designer speaking their language and recognizing that she has proposed that they do so a significant chunk of work.

In that spirit, I'd like to offer the world an expression that I occasionally employ which should really get out more often.

SMOUXD (smucks-dee)
“small matter of user experience design”
  1. A user experience problem resulting from deep in the structure of the system which people naïvely propose could be corrected with simple changes to the visual presentation of the UI.

    Example:

    Product Manager: Our customers are complaining that our order processing system is confusing. Can we fix it by redesigning the input form?

    UX Designer: (Rolls eyes) Sure, fixing the consequences of our broken supply chain spilling out onto our customers is just a Simple Matter Of UX Design.

  2. An opportunity to save a great deal of programming effort though a cunning bit of UX design.

    Example:

    Software Engineer: I think we could spot this pattern in the data using Markov chain analysis and throw errors when we suspect that there's a significant outlier. We will need to get a bunch of our customers to share their back-end data so we can tune the system.

    UX Designer: SMOUXD! We can graph the data in the right format and users will easily spot the cases they care about.

09 July 2012

Drones

The long Esquire article The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama is an important piece of journalism. It's written as a letter to the President.

This is not to say that the American people don't know about the Lethal Presidency, and that they don't support its aims. They do. They know about the killing because you have celebrated — with appropriate sobriety — the most notable kills, specifically those of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki; they support it because you have asked for their trust as a good and honorable man surrounded by good and honorable men and women and they have given it to you. In so doing, you have changed a technological capability into a moral imperative and have convinced your countrymen to see the necessity without seeing the downside. Politically, there is no downside. Historically, there is only the irony of the upside — that you, of all presidents, have become the lethal one; that you, of all people, have turned out to be a man of proven integrity whose foreign and domestic policies are less popular than your proven willingness to kill, in defense of your country, even your own countrymen ... indeed, to kill even a sixteen-year-old American boy accused of no crime at all.

I'll say it again: when Obama was elected I was prepared to be disappointed but I was not prepared to be horrified. Yet here we are.

Version 1.0

This article from Matt Buchanan at Buzzfeed is framed as advice for consumers, but the important lesson is for tech product and service companies. Yes, you should start by releasing the “minimum viable product”, but that product must in fact be viable. If you find yourself saying “sure this stinks, but we are just releasing it as the 1.0 version”, you're doing it wrong. You won't be able to fix it.

“Just wait for the update” or “just wait for the apps” or “there's more launching soon” has became so pervasive that when I was at Gizmodo we had a badge for it in reviews. Do you know how many products I reviewed that evolved past the “half baked” status into “must buy”? None. Ever. Ever.

Via Daring Fireball.

30 June 2012

Smokey the Bear Sutra

It will lead you to enlightenment.

....

Bearing in his right paw the Shovel that digs to the truth beneath appearances; cuts the roots of useless attachments, and flings damp sand on the fires of greed and war;

His left paw in the mudra of Comradely Display — indicating that all creatures have the full right to live to their limits and that of deer, rabbits, chipmunks, snakes, dandelions, and lizards all grow in the realm of the Dharma;

....

Seriously.

26 June 2012

Thomas Friedman

Occasionally I encounter someone who has become enamored of the insights of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. So I have to hunt up links to try to shake some sense into those folks. No more: I'm collecting criticisms of Mr Friedman here.

Let's start with Atrois calling him Wanker of the Decade:

The state of the world is what it is in large part because people in positions of great power think this absurd buffoon of man is a Very Serious Person. This hasn't actually been the Eschaton Decade, it's been the Tom Friedman Decade. And the next one probably will be too.

Seriously, read that and follow the links before you finish reading this post, because it provides a good overview of what's wrong with Friedman. I'll lift just one thing from it, this stunning video clip of Friedman talking to Charlie Rose and cooly advocating war crimes with smug bravado. Watch it, seriously.




That alone should make him outside the realm of civilized discourse, rather than one of the most influential pundits in America.

Matt Taibbi's famous takedown of Friedman's mixed metaphors from the Buffalo Beast, The Word Is Hack, talking about the book The World Is Flat:

Man flies on planes, observes the wonders of capitalism; says we're not in Kansas anymore. (He actually says we're not in Kansas anymore). That's the whole plot right there. If the underlying message is all that interests you, read no further, because that's all there is.

But it's impossible to divorce The World is Flat from its rhetorical approach. It's not for nothing that Thomas Friedman is called “the most important columnist in America today.” That it's Friedman's own colleague at the New York Times (Walter Russell Mead) calling him this, on the back of Friedman's own book, is immaterial. Friedman is an important American. He is the perfect symbol of our culture of emboldened stupidity.

At least mocking Friedman's bizarre mixed-metaphor style can be very funny, even if the content of his ideas is far from funny.

Taibbi has a longer followup article inspired by Friedman's later Hot, Flat, and Crowded, and Belén Fernández at Geurnica picks up the theme in even greater detail in Errata:

Friedman’s writing is characterized by a reduction of complex international phenomena to simplistic rhetoric and theorems that rarely withstand the test of reality. His vacuous but much-publicized “First Law of Petropolitics”—which Friedman devises by plotting a handful of historical incidents on a napkin and which states that the price of oil is inversely related to the pace of freedom—does not even withstand the test of the very Freedom House reports that Friedman invokes as evidence in support of the alleged law. The tendency toward rampant reductionism has become such a Friedman trademark that one finds oneself wondering whether he is not intentionally parodying himself when he introduces “A Theory of Everything” to explain anti-American sentiment in the world and states his hope “that people will write in with comments or catcalls so I can continue to refine [the theory], turn it into a quick book and pay my daughter’s college tuition.”

Alex Pareene imitates Friedman's voice in a howlingly funny article “about” Thomas Friedman.

As I wrote down what he said to use it in my column, it struck me that the world is changing. The world used to be flat. Now, everyone I talk to, everywhere I go, tells me something is bending the world into a new shape. This 4G, 401(k) world is getting rounded. That scares a lot of people. But it doesn’t scare Thomas Friedman. Because while some old media dinosaurs are going extinct thanks to the asteroid of globalization and the giant dust plume of hyperconnectivity, Friedman is a cockroach. A cockroach made of stone. A cockroach made of stone that lives in The Cloud.

In his piece A New Ayn Rand for A Dark Digital Future, Richard RJ Eskow implies that Friedman's peculiar style is part of how his technique works, because once that one can decode what Friedman is saying, to discover that he is really saying something ... something horrifying.

Consider this passage from Friedman's column:

In a world where, as I've argued, average is over — the skills required for any good job keep rising — a lot of people who might not be able to acquire those skills can still earn a good living now by building their own branded reputations, whether it is to rent their kids' rooms, their cars or their power tools.

This paragraph reads like a Zen koan pieced together from cast-away fragments of motivational sales speeches. We're left to infer the meaning of its more obscure phrases from their context, the same way World War II codebreakers cracked particularly difficult passages in enemy telexes. So let's try to tease out its meaning ....

“Average is over” is connected to job skills. Friedman apparently means that you can't get a good job anymore if your skill level is only average. Why didn't he just say so?

What are the implications of a world in which you must be above average to get “any good job”?

This post was inspired by another Belén Fernández piece, at Jacobin, talking about Friedman's philosophical incoherence in Tom Friedman's War on Humanity:

Thomas Friedman, three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, once offered the following insight into his modus operandi: “I often begin writing columns by interviewing myself.”

Some might see this as an unsurprising revelation in light of Edward Said’s appraisal: “It’s as if … what scholars, poets, historians, fighters, and statesmen have done is not as important or as central as what Friedman himself thinks.”

According to Friedman, the purpose of the auto-interviews is merely to analyze his feelings on certain issues. Given that his feelings tend to undergo drastic inter- and sometimes intra-columnar modifications, one potentially convenient byproduct of such an approach to journalism is the impression that Friedman interviews many more people than he actually does.

A Friedman Unit is a measure of time equal to six months used in the lefty blogosphere, after Friedman's repeated assertions about the war in Iraq that “the next six months will be crucial”.

We have a big problem. The dominant view among the in crowd in Washington is that the next 6 months is a critical time in Iraq. As it has always been. They're all Tom Friedman now.
....
All candidates need to lay the foundation for what they're going to say a year from now (“two Friedmans” in the newly established Friedman time scale) when Iraq is as bad or worse of a clusterfuck as it is now (Yes, yes, I hope to be wrong but it sadly hasn't happened yet).

It is vital to understand that the muddled thinking, hack “journalism”, and endless shilling for the interests of “the 1%” — that is to say, the stratospherically wealthy aristocrats in the top 0.01% of American wealth and income who own the US and run the world — is because he is one of them, as David Sirota points out:

Let's be clear — I'm a capitalist, so I have no problem with people doing well or living well, even Tom Friedman. That said, this does potentially explain an ENORMOUS amount about Friedman's perspective. Far from the objective, regular-guy interpreter of globalization that the D.C. media portrays him to be, Friedman is a member of the elite of the economic elite on the planet Earth. In fact, he's married into such a giant fortune, it's probably more relevant to refer to him as Billionaire Scion Tom Friedman than columnist Tom Friedman, both because that's more descriptive of what he represents, and more important for readers of his work to know so that they know a bit about where he's coming from.

Marc Levy also considers the implications of that:

I’ve rolled my eyes uncountable times after reading Friedman’s columns, but never caught on to why they’re so overwhelmingly misguided. Despite my acknowledgment that I was a willing participant in my own deception, that doesn’t mean I feel any less deceived. Or angry.
....
Friedman does not write as one of us. He is, in fact, one of them — a member of one of the 100 richest families in the country, according to Washingtonian Magazine, one of those who are not hurt by war or globalism and thus cannot honestly discuss it from the level of one who is.

Spread the word: Friedman doesn’t write nonsense; he writes propaganda.

Hopefully all this makes clear why the lefty blogosphere occasionally reminds of his enormous house and refers to him derisively as the Moustache of Undertanding.


Update: Want more takedowns of Friedman's writing? Jillian C. York has assembled a definitive collection.

Here are some of my favorites:

The lefty Driftglass blog regularly features vigorous fiskings of Friedman's commentary. Frankly, I find that Driftglass sometimes lets the snark get away with him, but given Friedman's writing this is a nigh-unavoidable hazard. Tommy Can You Hear Me is a choice example.

Another friend offers a helpful meme from Pejman Yousefzadeh.

James Livingston at Politics and Letters offers a comment on Friedman's use of cliché, Cliche Run Aground, which offers a sharp take on how it forecloses on debate, analysis, and thought.

Glenn Greenwald indicts all of us with his scathing description of Friedman's intellectual incoherency:

If I had to pick just a single fact that most powerfully reflects the nature of America’s political and media class in order to explain the cause of the nation’s imperial decline, it would be that, in those classes, Tom Friedman is the country’s most influential and most decorated “foreign policy expert.”

Greenwald also gives us a couple of good links on Friedman. He has some sharp words from Alexander Cockburn:

Friedman is so marinated in self-regard that he doesn’t even know when he’s being stupid. “While the defining measurement of the Cold War was weight–particularly the throw-weight of missiles–the defining measurement of the globalization system is speed.” Sounds good in a corporate roundtable, means nothing. The man just isn’t that smart, beyond the dubious ability to make money out of press releases praising the New Globalism and American power.

And Greenwald also points us to Current Events Inquiry which has a horrifying sampler of quotes from Friedman aptly called The Sociopathy of Thomas L. Friedman showing that that moment in the Charlie Rose interview is far from an aberration.

Salon uses his presence on the New York Times' editorial page as cause to call out the Times for hackery.

Yes, Friedman used the exact same vague generalization to start two consecutive paragraphs. And yes the second paragraph’s quote is obviously the source for everything Friedman wrote in the first paragraph, making the first paragraph unnecessary. And yes, Friedman thinks that would be a constructive thing to ask Hamas. “Have you considered instituting a strict standardized testing regimen in Gaza????”

Matt Taibbi returns to the well to tell us about Thomas Friedman's new state of grace and his most incoherent column ever.

Brian Mayer gives us an uncanny randomized Thomas Friedman Op-Ed Generator.

Because this is what his writing actually looks like.

Mike the Mad Biologist points to Friedman misremembering his stance on the Iraq war:

As someone who wanted us to partner with Iraqis to try to build a democracy there — in the heart of the Arab world after 9/11

Get Your War On gives us The Moustache of Greenderstanding.

On Twitter, sarah jeong gives us Thomas Friedman's Bad Trip.

On Facebook, Haroon Moghul gives us an instructive fisking of Friedman's column Freud and the Middle East. My favorite part:

Just as there is a little bit of West Bank “Jewish settler” in almost every Israeli, there is a little bit of the caliphate dream in almost every Sunni.

Friedman's in top-form in this essay — he's almost too good at being himself. Either he's mismatching categories (Friedman grew up never understanding why apples and oranges couldn't be compared), or saying nothing at all, which is often how these things go when he's at his best, which is his worst.

“Israeli” is a national identity, tied to a state that was established, in 1947-8, on someone else's land; Sunni is a sectarian denomination. There are several million Israelis. Sunni Islam is the largest religious denomination in the world, with over 1.1 billion adherents. Are we seriously comparing the two? To what ends?

If I'm reading Friedman correctly (which is really not the question we ask; usually, it's more solipsistic and exasperated: Am I the only person who is reading Friedman? Why does he exist instead of nothing? Why, God, why?), then he should be saying, “there's a little bit of West Bank Jewish settler in every *Jew*.”

Since Sunni isn't a nationality....

But he says Israeli. Not Jew. Which is either a cop-out, like it's okay to make grand, sweeping generalizations about Muslims but no one else, but surely that can't be the case, or he's making a completely different “point,” which is only a point in the way a period is a point — phentoypically.

In that case, is there a little bit of Nazi in every German? A little bit of monkey in every human? A little bit of Columbus in every American? A little bit of FOX News in every Republican? A little bit of sinner in every saint?

Which is the kind of revelation that reveals so much, we see the world no differently than we did five minutes before, except five minutes have passed and we'd not get them back, if not for Christopher Nolan's tesseract. (Humbling thought of the day: Thomas Friedman was produced by Western civilization, which Interstellar is all about trying to save.)

Justin Peters' review of a Friedman book makes some sharp comments about the notorious prose and then looks at the heart of Friedman's project:

But too often in Thank You for Being Late, as is Friedman’s wont, distillation becomes oversimplication. “Monterrey has tens of thousands of poor living in shantytowns. They’ve been there for decades,” he writes at one point. Wow, sounds tragic. But don’t worry, friends: “What is new, though, is that it now also has a critical mass of young, confident innovators trying to solve Mexico’s problems, by leveraging technology and globalization.” This is a man who has won Pulitzer Prizes for his foreign correspondence; a man who dearly wants you to know how many countries he has visited. He cannot actually believe that Mexican poverty will be fixed by an app.

Or maybe he does? Friedman takes a lot of things at face value. He spends 100 pages furiously stanning for polarizing companies such as Uber and Airbnb. He earnestly recounts his conversation with a “business visualization” expert: “When we first talked on the phone, he illustrated our conversation real-time on a shared digital whiteboard. I was awed.” He raves about “smart” appliances with the wide-eyed optimism of a man who perhaps has never used one.

25 June 2012

Consent

A friend on Facebook just pointed me to the terrific post The Art of No at CaptainAwkward.com, talking about manners and ethics while dating. I cannot recommend this post highly enough.

But I have an itch because my friend pointed to it by way of a post on the Tumblr blog Gallery of Dangerous Women which just excerpted this segment:

Women are socialized to make men feel good. We’re socialized to “let you down easy.” We’re not socialized to say a clear and direct “no.” We’re socialized to speak in hints and boost egos and let people save face. People who don’t respect the social contract (rapists, predators, assholes, pickup artists) are good at taking advantage of this.

“No” is something we have to learn. “No” is something we have to earn. In fact, I’d argue that the ability to just say “no” to something, without further comment, apology, explanation, guilt, or thinking about it is one of the great rites of passage in growing up, and when you start saying it and saying it regularly the world often pushes back. And calls you names.

Now that alone is a rich and important point. It's one component in the great tangled mass of cultural screwed-upped-ness that feminists like me refer to as rape culture. A lot of men just don't know about it at all, and even those who do have a hard time seeing all of the implications in women's experience. We need to see to that.

Indeed, I'm a fella who read a bunch of feminist theory as a teenager and committed to it seriously and almost three decades later I have to admit that I still labor to truly appreciate the implications. I can tell you from that experience that it is very difficult for even attentive and conscientious men to figure out how to operate ethically and effectively in the face of our failure to make clear consent a part of our culture. I can also tell you from that experience that most women — including most feminist women — don't realize how tricky this situation is for men. The beauty of that The Art of No post is that it focuses, as we should, on the risks and problems which this presents for women but also takes seriously the challenge that men face at the same time and provides some sophisticated answers for how men should navigate these waters.

So check it out before you even get to the rest of my post. I also recommend spending some time with that link above to Shakespeare's Sister talking about rape culture because the first order of business is to look at how this affects women before I get all What About Teh Menz ... indeed I think that the point I want to make about men's perspective on this only makes sense if you take rape culture seriously.

That said, let me invoke the slogan no means no in the context of women are not socialized to say a clear and direct “no” and pointedly observe that a certain ... friction ... exists between those two.

Let me step that up another couple of notches. Here's comedian Louis CK.

[Update: In the time since I originally wrote this, Louis CK's gawdawful behaviors around consent have come to light, which complicates quoting him. But please stay with this. We now know that he is being a disingenuous predator justifying himself with this bit; reading my reaction to it demonstrates how the pattern he describes ends up enabling predators like him.

I used to have an embedded video clip to a segment of CK’s Chewed Up show because getting CK's delivery is important, but that has linkrotted away. If you care to dig it up, the bit is about three-quarters of the way through the show.]

Here is a transcript:

I don't know how I ever got laid, really, ’cause I was awful at it. I still am. I never understood. Like, there's guys that just have this confidence, and they can like go out with a girl, know when to lean in and kiss her and shit. I just — I couldn't, I would just go “CaN i FuCk YoU?” Like, I'd just blurt it out.

I remember one night, I was with a girl, I was like twenty years old, I was already doing standup, and I did a show in Washington DC. And after the show one of the waitresses came back to my hotel. She was really cute. We were making out, in my hotel, and she's into it, she's like humping me. So I start to put my hand up her shirt and she stops me. I'm like, hmnn, okay. So then we're making out more, and I start to put my hand on her ass, and she stops me. So after a while she went home. Nothing happened.

And then the next night I saw her at the club and she goes, “Hey, what happened last night?”

I was like, “What?”

She goes, “How come we didn't have sex?”

I was like, “Because you didn't want to.”

She's like, “Yes I did! I was really into it.”

I was like, “W-why did you keep stopping me?”

And she goes, “Because I wanted you to just go for it.”

I was like, “What does that mean?”

She says, “I'm kind of weird. I get turned on when a guy just gets frustrated and just holds me down and fucks me. Like, that's a big turn-on for me.”

I was like, “Well, you should have told me, I would have happily done that for you.”

And she says, “No! It has to feel real, and dangerous.”

Like, “What, are you out of your fucking mind? You think I'm just going to rape you on the off chance that hopefully you're into that shit?”

That piece makes me laugh and gives me the Cold Spooky every time I watch it. There's a lot going on in it.

If you're not familiar with CK I should underline that he affects a kind of Dopey Middle-Aged White Guy persona, but his cultural politics are not-so-secretly smart and sharply observed. His act commonly looks squarely at homophobia, and one of his bits on White privilege is justly famous. He makes arguably feminist rhetorical moves; again, that we now know that he is being wildly disingenuous with that tells us that we shouldn't think of him as a feminist, but those moves remain unmistakably informed by a social justice analysis. His TV series Louie is also one of the smartest, gutsiest things ever put on broadcast television. All of which is to not just plug CK, whom I do love, (well, not so much any more) but to underline that this bit about a scary, funny sex and dating misadventure is deliberately constructed.

I say “constructed”, but I don't mean to imply that it didn't happen. I feel certain that it happened to CK pretty much the way he describes. I have that conviction because while his story provides an especially vivid example, practically all straight men have had encounters like that.

Encounters. Plural. Listen to the men laughing in the background as CK does his routine. They're not laughing because it's absurd; they're laughing because it's familiar.

Women send men mixed messages. A big part of it is the coercive socialization that the quote from Captain Awkward above talks about, but it isn't the only thing. Look at the way Louis CK plays the voice of the woman in his story: his responsible and necessary refusal to dance with her broken expectations about consent is confusing to her. She finds it surprising and mysterious and — most disconcerting of all — frustrating.

[Again, that we can now hear CK using this story to rationalize his bad behavior should make us uneasy, because making this move worked for him because it alludes to something real which non-predatory men recognize, making his interpretation of events sound plausible to them.]

When my friend pointed to that CaptainAwkward.com quote above, I told her (having not yet discovered the rest of the post it came from):

At the same time, coercion culture — like women trained to send mixed signals — makes it difficult for men to figure out responsible behavior. The resulting confusions further reïnforce the patterns of the patriarchy.

And she replied:

Yes. So opt out.

Hell yes. I hope it goes without saying that Louis CK did the right thing for himself, for the young lady, and for the world.

But at the same time, one does not simply walk out of the patriarchy.

When I was a young fella I lived an opt-out ethic explicitly and deliberately. Recall that I alluded to reading a lot of feminist theory as a teenager? Being young and naïve, it did not occur to me that other people were not thinking about things in the terms I was, informed by that, approaching consent as deliberately as I did. This helped make dating and sex even more awkward and confusing than they already are when one is young. And one day a young feminist with whom I discussed these things took me to task, saying, “So you have decided that when women have an exchange with you, they should be able to discern that you're operating from a different ethic and using different communication patterns than the whole world they're accustomed to? Isn't that a lot to ask?” Because like Louis CK, by trying to date women in a way that took clear consent seriously, I was confusing and surprising and mystifying and frustrating the women I was interacting with. I had to find better solutions.

Not easy. I wish I'd had CaptainAwkward.com back then.

My friend is right, men must opt out, because opting in is the patriarchy and rape culture and I hope that I don't have to explain to anyone reading this why that merits deliberate and vigorous resistance. But let's notice that, per Louis CK's example, opting out means fellas opting out of the embraces of willing women. His example also shows that those women are generally Not A Good Idea To Get Mixed Up With anyway, but there are moments in a young fella's life when that is confusing and cold comfort and can have one asking if you have the whole thing wrong. Which is not to say Poor Men Not Getting Laid but to say that the world does not give men good feedback.

To be clear, I'll repeat that the first order of business is to look at how this stuff affects women and to attend to that. But since there are a lot of good voices talking about that, allow me this post to make a plea to my sisters in feminism, who often forget or don't know: that full post at CaptainAwkward.com talks about how respecting women's consent is genuinely tricky for men to do in the context of a coercive, sexist society.

In light of that, “so opt out” is not answer enough. Part of the conversation has to be to ask, yes, what about teh menz? and to expect that the answers are neither simple nor easy to figure out.




Update: Looking at this again, I realize that I didn't sufficiently emphasize an important point. The Art of No is terrific in large part because it exemplifies the kind of feminist discourse I'm advocating here. It makes the sexist injustices that women experience primary, while recognizing that an understanding of men's experience is also integral to addressing those injustices, and offers realistic practices for both women and men to use in responding to the challenges they present. Part of the frustration which motivates this post is noticing that the quote about women's socialization was separated from the rest and circulated well enough to reach me; while that quote makes its point well, in the context of feminist discourse it's something that has been said many times before, and thus to my point is in a certain sense the least interesting part of the post.




Update: Niki Whiting over on Google+ has an instructive comment.

one of the reasons girls/women don't speak up for what the want/don't want is that to know what we want sexually is usually equated with being a slut. If I say ‘I like it like This and like That’ then our experience as female is often being slut shamed, whether explicitly or implicitly. Hell, even just saying ‘No, I don't like that’ or even just ‘Yes, please’ can be taken as too much sexual agency.

Indeed. Women are subject to vigorous gender policing which punishes clear communication about sex. Men too, in very different ways, though it's important for men to remember that the stakes for women are much higher.




Update: Another point I did not make vigorously enough originally: the example of Louis CK demonstrates how these kinds of encounters from men's lived experience can be exploited by predatory men. When they spin lies about mixed messages and misunderstandings, these sound plausible to men who are not predatory because it rhymes with awkward encounters they have had.


Updates:

24 June 2012

Growing a Language

The talk “Growing a Language” by Guy Steele says a good thing that you may want to know about programming languages. Even if you do not know about programming languages, you may find it says a good thing about all languages, and says it in a smart way.

One can watch it or read it on the web.

Stick with it for a bit and all will be clear. Once you know the trick, you can skip to near the end if you do not care about programming languages. It has a good end.

Pride

This week I have felt a vague sense of guilt that I planned my weekend such that I won't attend the San Francisco Pride parade today. As I have alluded to before, despite the serious critiques one could have of it, the event performs a vital function, and part of that means that heterosexual fellas like me need to represent. Part of the point of Pride, of taking the form of a parade, is having the community as a whole participate and show the simple but profound support of just showing up. That sentiment has a certain lefty-intellectual flavor, but I am a lefty intellectual, so there you have it.

Part of my Pride Failure this year was that last night, rather than toasting to the liberation of my GLBTQ brothers and sisters and less-tidily-gendered-siblings, I raised glasses of champagne in the company of friends with coïncident birthdays, Happily Birthdaying ourselves. A friend and I decided to walk back from that party to catch a late BART train.

The streets were alive with Pride revelers, most of them displaying one variety or another of Fabulousness. Inspired by this, my friend and I talked a bit about the magick of dressing and grooming as a gift to both the world and one's self. Then my friend — who has spent years running continuation schools, the place where kids go when they get expelled from high school — noticed a note in all the Fabulousness which I had only half-recognized until she named it. We had drag queens and drag kings and drag indefinably-regals, whole sleuths of bears and otters, graceful butch-femme lesbian couples, the campy and the elegant, the loud and the quiet, on and on in gorgeous variation. And as we walked down Market Street, our company became more and more composed of people bound for the BART station as we were, on their way home from the heart of the Castro or festivities elsewhere in the City. The note that my friend spotted as we proceeded was a whole other kind of fabulous: Ghetto Fabulous.

This crowd was young and drunk and happy and un-bourgeios, many but not all people of color, many but not all evidently heterosexual (though it was pleasantly hard to say for sure). I am way too White and bourgeois to describe Ghetto Fabulousness without sounding hopelessly square and risking lodging my foot firmly in my mouth, but I am able to recognize it ... and my friend, who encounters it every day in her work, has become a connoisseur of its charms and so of course recognized it before I did.

So these were not middle-aged lefty intellectual straights with windy explanations of why allies need to support a shared community space. These were cheerful bonehead straights who came to party.

I knew that we lived in a time when Christians came to Pride to apologize for the failure of Christ Love from some of their brothers and sisters in Christ. And I knew that we're cooking up some young people who lack the homophobic anxiety that was an unspoken part of the world of my youth. But I hadn't yet absorbed this, that the forgetting of that anxiety was already complete enough that — at least here in the Bay Area — we had a whole generation of straight kids so unaware of that anxiety as a possibility, without needing the huge doses of intellectualized queer theory that brought me to that place, that they would take the train to San Francisco for Pride mostly because it's a good party.

My friend whispered to me, “Look. Victory.”

I don't want to ignore the countless horrific ways in which of course the liberation which Pride symbolizes has not happened. The forces of sex and gender normativity remain powerful and their knives still cut deep. But the future is here, and queer, and we are getting used to it. The forces arrayed against that have already lost, even if they haven't stopped fighting. In my lifetime, I can expect to see Pride become as banal as St. Patrick's Day.

I am blessed to live in such times.


21 June 2012

The Wire

I keep telling people to watch the HBO series The Wire, and it occurs to me that I should have my pitch somewhere handy. Here's the short form:

The Wire is so good that it will make you embarrassed to have ever liked any other television shows. Really.

To expand on that:

The Wire is a TV show about police wiretaps like Moby Dick is a novel about whaling, like uranium-235 is an explosive material, like Elvis was a guitarist. The show’s intelligence, ambition, and craftsmanship make almost everything else on TV look shabby … and at the same time it delivers livelier entertainment than most programs that try for nothing else.

On top of all that, I submit that as an American citizen one has a responsibility to watch The Wire because it delivers such a vital examination of American institutional failure, using the devices of fiction and television to tell the story in the way that a serious book on the subject could not.

So watch it.

That said, I have some recommendations about how one should go about doing that.

Though released as five seasons of a weekly series, one should not think of it like series television. Each season does not just have an overall story arc; each season constitutes a thirteen hour film with nearly arbitrary hourly breaks. The story and characters do not coalesce until three or four episodes in. This means a kind of commitment much like reading a novel; one cannot read most novels in a single sitting, and since it requires a certain momentum to keep the book in your head, typically one reads a novel in a mix of long and short sittings over the course of a week or three. Similarly, I strongly recommend planning for a long viewing session to get started with The Wire, three or four hours. After that you will want to set aside time for 2-4 hour viewing sessions two or three times a week … and by “you will want”, I mean that once the show gets its hooks into you, it will become hard to devote that little time to watching it.

I envy anyone getting to watch The Wire for the first time. But I comfort myself with the knowledge that I can watch it again, which I can attest is every bit as gratifying.


If I cannot convince you, here’s Charlie Brooker:


12 June 2012

Game of Thrones

A refined version of this post appears together with several other comments on my Game Of Thrones master post.

Laurie Penny's article Game of Thrones and its Good Ruler Complex at The New Statesman says some astute things about the racism in Game of Thrones, but says the wrongest thing possible about what the show and series of novels implies.

Game of Thrones is all about kings and queens, all about who gets to be in charge and how they win and retain power, by violence, by force of will or simply by accident. The essential assumption of this story is a familiar one: sovereignty and leadership are inherently good things, common workers need decent kings or queens to make them happy and prosperous, and even if a catalogue of leaders are bad, mad or murderous, if you can just find the right king, the true, wise, noble king who deserves to be on the throne, then everything will be okay.

This is a bit like saying that the message of The Wire is that we need to support good cops in putting a stop to crime. (It's not.)

Yes, the people of Thrones' fictional Westeros think exactly what Penny says. Yes, a lot of naïve readers of “genre fantasy” literature think the same thing. (Authors in the medium have called that out as a problem.) But the book and the TV series do not think that a Good Ruler can save Westeros. The feudal idea that a good ruler will save the realm is the villain of the story. Not the greedy House of Lannister. Not the White Walkers. Not the dragons. Feudalism.

At every turn, we are shown the evils of the feudal order. The honorable suffer. The dishonorable triumph. Both the ordinary people and the nobility suffer in the endless pointless wars it engenders. Westeros is a horrible place to live. The sexist nightmare of rape, prostitution, and chattel marriage that Penny criticizes is a demonstration of how bad things are in Westeros.

And in a direct parallel to The Wire, we see smart characters try vigorously to make the systems in which they are enmeshed work. They play along, or try to game the system, or try to work against it, or try to step outside of it, and meet with failure every time.

Penny is right that Westeros is horrible, and it's madness to wait for a Good Ruler. But that's the point. Which is why I love Game of Thrones so much.




A quick note to my sex-positive readers who deplore the blanket assumption that Prostitution Is Always Bad, as well as to those Thrones fans who will point out that Shae Is Awesome: I assure you that I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I think that we can agree that prostitution in Westeros is generally pretty ugly, yes?

08 June 2012

Wish list

Want to buy me a present? Of course you do.

The ideal gift for me is cufflinks or a big scarf or a colorful pocket square; fun, decadent, modestly expensive, and something I will surely use and enjoy.

I also really need a nice pair of slippers. I've accumulated several cheap and unsatisfactory solutions to the problem, and need to really solve it.

Failing that, I love fancy office supplies; Moleskines and eccentric stencils and Leuchtturm1917 dot grid notebooks and almost all of those overpriced things in the Levenger catalogue appeal to me.

If you're feeling extravagant, there are three multivolume books I lust for: the unabridged McSweeny's edition of William Vollman's Rising Up & Rising Down, an unabridged edition of the Burton translation of The Thousand Nights and a Night, or the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

Or chocolate. Hard to go wrong with chocolate.

07 June 2012

Chickenhawks

I just stumbled across a Digby article from 2005 about the psychosexual underpinnings of conservative chickenhawks' enthusiasm for the Global War on Terror.

We are dealing with a group of right wing glory seekers who chose long ago to eschew putting themselves on the line in favor of tough talk and empty posturing --- the Vietnam chickenhawks and their recently hatched offspring of the new Global War On Terrorism. These are men (mostly) driven by the desire to prove their manhood but who refuse to actually test their physical courage. Neither are they able to prove their virility as they are held hostage by prudish theocrats and their own shortcomings. So they adopt the pose of warrior but never actually place themselves under fire. This is a psychologically difficult position to uphold. Bullshitting yourself is never without a cost.

And I think there is an even deeper layer to this as well and one which is vital to understanding why the right wing baby boomers and their political offspring are so pathologically irrational about dealing with terrorism.

Still instructive.

05 June 2012

Drone strikes

What Chris Bertram said. Ganked entire from Crooked Timber:

I’ve been reading some of Glenn Greenwald’s recent posts with increasing horror as he details the apparent willingness of the US drone campaign to attack events where non-combatants will certainly be present, such as funerals and to try to evade moral and legal responsibility by redefining “combatant” to include any military-age male in a strike zone. I’ve also been monitoring various liberal sites and blogs for signs of a reaction and not seeing much (please correct that impression in comments). Sites that obsess about non-combatant immunity if the people firing the rockets are from Hamas are silent. Blogs that take attitudes to historic human rights violations as a litmus-test of political acceptability, have nothing to say as a liberal American President bombs civilians on the territory of nominally friendly states. Fortunately, I’m not an American citizen, so I don’t have a moral decision to take about whether to vote for Obama or not this year. If I were, I don’t think it would be an easy decision to take. Romney is clearly remarkably close in political belief to Obama, but will be beholden to the crazy Republican right, as Obama is not. That provides people with a reason to vote for Obama. But the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner doesn’t deserve the vote of anyone who cares about human rights, even if, pragmatically they might feel they have to give it to him.

I have nothing to add.

28 May 2012

Capitalism sexism racism

The pamphlet Who Is Oakland: Anti-Oppression Activism, the Politics of Safety, and State Co-optation has been circulating in Occupy Oakland circles. It is long, smart, provocative, radical, and well worth the time it takes to read it.

Speaking of capitalism as though it were somehow separable from racist exploitation, gendered violence, and the gamut of complex oppressions facing us in this world, confines antiracist and antipatriarchal struggle to the sphere of culture, consciousness, and individual privilege.
....
Understanding racism as primarily a matter of individual racial privilege, and the symbolic affirmation of marginalized cultural identities as the solution to this basic lack of privilege, is the dominant and largely unquestioned form of anti-oppression politics in the US today. According to this politics, whiteness simply becomes one more “culture,” and white supremacy a psychological attitude, instead of a structural position of dominance reinforced through institutions, civilian and police violence, access to resources, and the economy.
....
For too long individual racial privilege has been taken to be the problem, and state, corporate, or nonprofit managed racial and ethnic “cultural diversity” within existing hierarchies of power imagined to be the solution. It is a well-worn activist formula to point out that “representatives” of different identity categories must be placed “front and center” in struggles against racism, sexism, and homophobia. But this is meaningless without also specifying the content of their politics. The US Army is simultaneously one of the most racially integrated and oppressive institutions in American society. “Diversity” alone is a meaningless political ideal which reifies culture, defines agency as inclusion within oppressive systems, and equates identity categories with political beliefs.
....
Communities of color are not a single, homogenous bloc with identical political opinions. There is no single unified antiracist, feminist, and queer political program which white liberals can somehow become “allies” of, despite the fact that some individuals or groups of color may claim that they are in possession of such a program. This particular brand of white allyship both flattens political differences between whites and homogenizes the populations they claim to speak on behalf of. We believe that this politics remains fundamentally conservative, silencing, and coercive, especially for people of color who reject the analysis and field of action offered by privilege theory.
....
The absurdity of privilege politics recenters antiracist practice on whites and white behavior, and assumes that racism (and often by implicit or explicit association, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia) manifest primarily as individual privileges which can be “checked,” given up, or absolved through individual resolutions. Privilege politics is ultimately completely dependent upon precisely that which it condemns: white benevolence.
....
The one month Occupy Oakland encampment was blamed by the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and its city government partners for everything from deepening city poverty to the failure of business led development, from the rats which have always infested the city plaza to the mounting cost of police brutality. An encampment which fed about a thousand people every day of its month-long existence, and which witnessed a 19% decrease in area crime in the last week of October, was scapegoated for the very poverty, corruption, and police violence it came into existence to engage.
....
In a complete reversal of 60s-era militant antiracist political movements, we are told by these politicians and pundits that militant, disruptive, and confrontational political actions which target this city bureaucracy and its police forces can only be the work of white, middle class, and otherwise privileged youths.
....
We are told that the victims of oppression must lead political struggles against material structures of domination by those who oppose every means by which the “victims” could actually overthrow these structures. We are told that resistance lies in “speaking truth to power” rather than attacking power materially. We are told by an array of highly trained “white allies” that the very things we need to do in order to free ourselves from domination cannot be done by us because we’re simply too vulnerable to state repression. At mass rallies, we’re replayed endless empty calls for revolution and militancy from a bygone era while in practice being forced to fetishize our spiritual powerlessness.

I give you those quotes to whet the appetite. The pamphlet merits reading in its entirety.

For readers unfamiliar with the context, the allusions to “safety” reference an ongoing activist discussion of how actions which risk confrontation with police are affected by racism, since these confrontations have gentler stakes for activists in a position of privilege (White, male, cisgender, bourgeois, able-bodied, et cetera) than for people of color, women, trans people, the poor, the disabled, et cetera. Thus many activists argue that proposals of confrontational action reflect “privilege”, and the movement should avoid these tactics out of respect for the “safety” of movement participants who are people of color et cetera. (I haven't been able to find a link to a good articulation of this argument; if any of my readers can, I'd appreciate a link.) This pamphlet disagrees, saying that systemic injustice means that one cannot secure “safety” for oppressed people without vigorous political action, so that this argument for safety takes effective tools away from the movement and therefore supports systemic oppression.

I don't know. I need to think about this for a bit. Three things give me pause.

I respect its anticapitalist critique, and have made many of the same noises myself. At the level of consciousness-raising, we have too little radical criticism of capitalism out there. But at the level of political action, anti-capitalism isn't a program; you need to be pro-something-else. And I don't have a good image of what post-capitalist order I would advocate. The authors of “Who Is Oakland” don't offer one either. Advocating more vigorous and effective action without a positive program is profoundly unsatisfying. Not that I have any answers of my own to offer ... which leads me to value consciousness-raising more than the authors of the pamphlet evidently do, so that we can work on the problem of finding a positive program to advocate.

I also distrust the deliberate vagueness about what more-vigorous actions it proposes. I have a deep skepticism about political violence; it isn't just more vigorous and effective than non-violence, it takes us to a different place altogether, a place where I hesitate to go. I believed from early on that Occupy should explicitly reject violence and vandalism in order to remain a popular movement because these tactics alienate too many Americans. But advocates for vandalistic actions compelled Occupy Oakland to accept a “diversity of tactics” principle, and as a result has not been able to counter people pointing to the actions of vanguardists (and almost certainly provocateurs) to discredit the movement. So the pamphlet's hints that it supports confrontational activism arouses my skepticism.

And I find myself very conscious that my hand-wringing over these questions reflects a characteristically White guy move.

So: Food for thought.

21 May 2012

Trickster



Black Widow asks:
Loki? The “trickster god”? Who tricked who?

20 May 2012

The best TV show

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is better than The Wire, according to a man who should know: David Simon, the creator of The Wire.

We thought some prolonged arguments about what kind of country we’ve built might be a good thing, and if such arguments and discussions ever happen, we will feel more vindicated in purpose than if someone makes an argument for why The Wire is the best show in years. (“Buffy,” by the way, was the correct answer to that particular bracketfest.)

That, of course, is just an aside on the way to talking insightfully about much more important things. Click through for more David Simon awesomeness. (And I've found the New York Times interview, and then the follow-up interview he alludes to. If you care about this stuff, you may want to read those first.)

Worth reading. But I disagree with Simon about one thing: I love love love Buffy, and the episode “The Body” is the single best hour of television ever made, but The Wire is far and away the best TV show I've ever seen.


Update: Still.

17 May 2012

Check your sources

So this plan to swiftboat Obama in the 2012 election was just found and published by the New York Times.



In the words of Jeremiah Wright, “The chickens have come home to roost.”

You would think that people planning on attacking President Obama as being a Scary Black Man would know who most famously said that the chickens were coming home to roost. Come on, guys. If you're going to be evil racists, the least you can do for America is do it properly.



10 May 2012

Global climate change denial debunking

Skeptical Science offers an index of answers to common arguments by global warming deniers.

Iraq

Imagine my total lack of surprise at learning that the Bush administration apparently never debated the Iraq war, they just bulled their way into it.

In contrast to an extensive record of planning for actual military operations, there is no record that President George W. Bush ever made a considered decision for war. All of the numerous White House and Pentagon meetings concerned moving the project forward, not whether a march into conflict was a proper course for the United States and its allies. Deliberations were instrumental to furthering the war project, not considerations of the basic course. Moreover, the administration engaged in active measures to avoid scrutiny of its intentions, with the president repeatedly claiming there were no war plans "on his desk." The testimony of senior British military officers to the United Kingdom's Iraq Inquiry (the Chilcot commission), documented in the Archive's analyses, explicitly demonstrates that even America's closest ally was closed out of the CENTCOM planning until “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was far down the road.

Also in contrast to the military planning, there is no record that the Bush administration crafted any plan to attain its goals by means other than covert operations or war.

I have worked in organizations which made “decisions” that way myself.

04 May 2012

How to make a great product

This is an update to the diagram from my old article about product development roles.

Engineering, design, marketing, and executive leadership all act as advocates for the different elements of a successful product or service — product management is the role that brings it all together.

03 May 2012

Avengers

The clock's ticking before Avengers comes out. With my skills in Advanced Jossology, I have been trying to predict how the movie is going to go. But most of it isn't a challenge, given what we already know: there will be banter, there will be them Learning To Be A Team, et cetera. And unsurprisingly, Joss has confessed that he loves S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson, because Clark Gregg is just his kind of actor, so there's no magic in being able to call that Coulson will get some good stuff in this movie.

But I have two little predictions that I'd like to have on the table, to see if I can call it right.

Number one, I know that Joss is in love with Kitty Pryde of the X-Men. When I saw him speak at ComiCon, he took a question from the audience and was beside himself when he realized that the questioner was dressed as her. When he wrote Astonishing X-Men, the story became Kitty Pryde Saves The World. So while Fox still holds the rights to movie adaptations of the X-Men, and Joss has said that he doesn't want to lard the movie up with too many inside jokes for Marvel Comics fans, I think he won't be able to resist a wink toward her. I'm imagining someone saying, “All this firepower and what we need right now is someone who can walk through walls.”

Number two, we know that Joss likes his Strong Woman Characters, but the only female Avenger we have is Black Widow. (I'm guessing that he lobbied hard to get The Wasp, too, but no luck.) And she's really just a non-super human being with spy and kung fu skills and a few little gadgets. How's that going to work?

I have a theory. You know that moment in the trailer where they are all standing in a circle? Hulk roars, Thor hefts Mjölnir, and Black Widow racks the slide on a little pistol? A friend was mocking that, talking about how a Glock just didn't rate compared to Iron Man's armor. But think about Batman when he's serving in the Justice League — him being a normal human being keeping pace with superheroes through wit and grit makes him the most badass of them all. Joss is going to find a way to sell Black Widow to us in the same way.

I'm picturing a scene something like this:

Captain America (to Black Widow)
No offense, ma'am, but I'm not comfortable bringing someone into this battle who doesn't have ... advantages ... like the rest of us.

Iron Man
She's tougher than she looks. But I feel protective toward her, too.

Black Widow
(Walking up to Iron Man. Sultry.)
Think I can't take you, Mr. Stark?

Iron Man
I thought you'd never ask.

Widow puts her hands on Iron Man's shoulders, and they exchange a look. Then in a dizzying flash of badass martial arts moves, she strikes his armor in a few key points and steps back, looking smug. Iron Man, to his obvious consternation, is frozen stock still.

Iron Man
Uh ... guys?

Thor
(laughing)
Do you have a way to take out all of us?

Widow
Want to find out?

Thor
(big grin, throwing up his hands)
I'll keep my dignity, thank you.

Bruce Banner
(hopeful)
Me too, if it comes to that?

Widow
Absolutely, Dr. Banner.

When we get to that moment from the trailer in the actual movie (no doubt after Captain America bellows “Avengers assemble!” for the first time) we're going to be thinking, “Wait, she was badass enough barehanded, and now she's got a gun!?!

30 April 2012

Moses hears the voice of Ha'Shem

In the Torah we are told that Ha'Shem spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai. One day the wisest rabbis discussed what Ha’Shem must have said.

One rabbi said that Ha’Shem spoke the whole of the Torah to Moses in a moment as a single cacophonous utterance.

Another said that Ha’Shem only spoke the Ten Commandments.

Another said only the first commandment.

לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־פני אנכי יהוה אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים

I am Ha’Shem: your god, who brought you out of the Narrow Place, the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
Another said only the first verse of the first commandment.
אנכי יהוה אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים

I am Ha’Shem: your god, who brought you out of the Narrow Place, the house of bondage

Another said only the first three words.

אנכי יהוה אלהיך

I am Ha’Shem, your god

Another said only the first word.

אנכי

I am

Another said only the first letter.

א

The other rabbis protested. “But the first letter, א, has no sound!”

That rabbi replied, “א!”

20 April 2012

Footnote to Howl

Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy!

Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel!

The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy!

The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy!

Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels!

Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas!

Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes & drums!

Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets!

Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles!

Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria & Seattle Holy Paris Holy Tangiers Holy Moscow Holy Istanbul!

Holy time in eternity holy eternity in time holy the clocks in space holy the fourth dimension holy the fifth International holy the Angel in Moloch!

Holy the sea holy the desert holy the railroad holy the locomotive holy the visions holy the hallucinations holy the miracles holy the eyeball holy the abyss!

Holy forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith! Holy! Ours! bodies! suffering! magnanimity!

Holy the supernatural extra brilliant intelligent kindness of the soul!


Allen Ginsberg
Berkeley
1955

Weird places

In case you're not getting enough of this sort of thing from the Warren Ellis blog, Atlas Obscura is a blog of weird places you can actually go.

You do; you totally do

One does not simply walk into Mordor

17 April 2012

Neither taxation nor property is theft

I do not believe, as many do, that the wealth of the world is unambiguously divided into the product of individuals' efforts.

The economy of the world is a great machine in which we all participate. The iPhone in my pocket is a product of the effort of countless thousands, even millions, of people. There are the engineers who designed it, the factory workers who built it, the managers who organized the effort, the miners who produced the materials, the truckers and salespeople who moved all that around until it wound up in my hands. Pennies from the price I paid for it were distributed to all those folks, in a vast accounting scheme, but there is no essential, natural order to that accounting scheme; in principle, it could have been organized differently.

Note also that the most important people who birthed my iPad did not get paid. Countless people, most of them long dead, built the tools used to build the tools to build the tools to make it, from Alan Turing back through the first person to smelt iron and before. Without them, the efforts of the people who did get paid would have been almost worthless. Without them, we would all be impoverished paleolithic savages whatever our wit and effort. None of us have any claim on that wealth by virtue of our own efforts. It belongs to all of us, or none of us, depending on how you look at it.

I paid money for that iPhone, and that money passed from me to Apple, and from there to countless others, trickling back to many of the contributors who helped make that phone, as well as to many others who had no hand in my phone at all. The system of accounting by which that wealth was distributed as little slices of private property is a vast, sophisticated fiction. I don't say “fiction” to dismiss it. Private property is a powerful, valuable fiction, stunningly effective in enabling us to create wealth. In comparison with other accounting fictions human beings have tried — feudalism and Sovietism and so on — it has profound advantages that I hesitate to sacrifice. But I reject the idea that individual productivity understood this way reflects some essential truth prior to our social arrangements. We invented private property. We divided the world into things owned by different people. We could choose to organize things differently if we decided it served us better.

Government creates, sustains, and enforces this fiction. That's not to say that government owns everything and then distributes it; government only asserts that ownership is structured in a certain way, with most wealth owned by entities other than government. In service of making the mechanism of government possible we empower government to levy taxes, which we can see as yet another useful fiction.

The wealth of the world belongs to humanity. Government animates the system by which we organize that wealth. I believe in liberal democracy: that our collective will should define government (democracy), but that there are some things that government should not be empowered to do even if we will it (liberal).

I originally wrote this in response to a libertarian who told me that in advocating taxation, I implicitly favored a totalitarian government which “owned everything”. That libertarian was wrong.