Speak Your Mind

Freedom of speech has made the news a couple of times this week. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the famously hateful Westboro Baptist "Church" of Topeka "Kansas" has the constitutional right to spew verbal venom at military (and other funerals). The group, which believes that God is punishing America for its permissive attitudes towards homosexuality and other perceived sins against morality, organizes protests at military funerals, where followers brandish signs reading "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers." Charming folks.

Today came news that, despite a request from Congress, the provocative videos from anti-American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki can still be found on YouTube. The difficulty in removing Awlaki's videos stems from two major issues. One, many of the cleric's videos are relatively innocuous, featuring sermons on less controversial issues like Islamic history or current social issues. Two, the sheer volume of videos overwhelms YouTube's capacity for monitoring, so the company relies on its users to "flag" potentially objectionable material. Once flagged, videos are reviewed by YouTube employees to see if they should, in fact, be removed. In other words, while YouTube agrees in principle with the idea that videos that incite violence have no place on the website, they fight an uphill battle in trying to remove every example thereof.

We agree with the Supreme Court decision on principle. As Voltaire did not say, we may not agree with what the "Church" says, we will defend to the death their right to be douchebags. OK, maybe not to the death. But as offensive as these people are, they do have the right to say whatever they want. Local officials are equally free to set up "buffer zones" around funerals to keep these people a reasonable distance from the mourners. And, of course, better-intentioned citizens can and often do come out to drown out the haters. In a sense, we appreciate the utter egregiousness of the Westboors: They may bring some on-the-fence conservative types over to a more liberal viewpoint, if only to avoid association with these folks.

As for al-Awlaki, YouTube is taking the right approach. Censorship is almost never the answer. Sure, people shouldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or vice versa. But we don't think al-Awlaki is doing that. Yes, his anti-American speeches advocating violence should come down, but blanket censorship is not the answer. Some will say that he has inspired violent, murderous acts. He probably has. We wonder, though, in the absence of al-Awlaki's speech, whether those who killed at "his" instigation would not have found some other excuse. Clearly, these were troubled individuals to begin with.

It's been said before, but we'll say it here again: The solution to offensive speech is not censorship, but more speech. Let's hear it.

Perception

No doubt most members of Solipsist Nation have seen this image before, but, if you haven't, what do you see? A young woman turned away from the viewer's gaze? Or an old lady in a shawl? If you can only see one, here's the explanation: The young lady's "ear" is the old lady's "eye"; the young lady's "jawbone" is the old lady's "nose"; and the young lady's "choker" is the old lady's "mouth." Apparently, they can both afford a fur coat.

When people first look at the picture, they see one of these two images. Indeed, it can sometimes be tricky to see the "other" image at first. We suppose psychologists have some theory about what one's initial interpretation of the picture says about the inner life of the observer, but that's not what interests us here. We're more interested in the fact that, whether you see an old lady or a young one, you're right! This picture is both at the same time.

It's an interesting metaphor for much of civic discourse. When two groups debate a social problem, each side is firmly convinced of the correctness of its position. Abortion is the taking of life; abortion is a personal choice. Unions are vital to the ability of workers to maintain their rights against the forces of capital; unions are a drag on the economy, forcing business executives to sacrifice efficiency for the sake of workers' preferences. US troops should get out of Afghanistan; the US has a responsibility to stay in Afghanistan until the country is able to stand on its own. Each side firmly believes in the rightness of its position and cannot convince the other of its consequent "wrongness."

What if both sides are right? This is not to say that one must agree with everything. But wouldn't more problems get solved if each side of a debate could recognize that--to some extent--their opponents are speaking in "good faith," out of firmly held beliefs that are, in fact, correct. That while some see an old lady, the picture is that of an old woman, and vice versa. If we start from a recognition of each others' facts, then maybe we can achieve some sort of common understanding of each others' opinions. And maybe we can achieve some solutions for the seemingly intractable problems society faces, as long as we recognize that everybody--everybody--is operating from sincerely good intentions.

Well, y'know, except Republicans.

Solipsistography

Image from The Heart and Craft of Life Writing

How Not to Write

Writers have a responsibility to their readers: to be as clear as possible. Indeed, we explain to our students that there are four 'C's of good writing: Good writing is clear, correct, concise, and compelling. And the order is important: Clarity is job one, and, if you do nothing else, be clear.

We were annoyed, therefore, when we read this sentence in yesterday's Times:

[T]he Council has given the city’s imprimatur to a use of a medical tool that the National Institutes of Health has said “may not be ethical” and whose usefulness in fighting cancer scientists have passionately debated.

You see the problem? Of course, what the sentence is saying is that scientists have passionately debated the usefulness of a particular tool in fighting cancer. The difficulty arises, though, because of the sequence of words "fighting cancer scientists." A reader stumbles momentarily, as he parses the phrase and comes up with an image of a tool engaging in conflict with scientists who specialize in cancer. The image is dispelled by the following "have," but the reader is forced to recalibrate--to recode the sentence and recognize "scientists" as the subject of the verb (which is actually "have debated"), and "usefulness in fighting cancer" as the inverted direct object.

Inverting the direct object can, indeed, be a powerful rhetorical technique: "If you're looking for trouble, then trouble you shall receive." But problems arise when a desire to be compelling overwhelms the need for clarity. And clarity, we say again, is job one.

Solipsistography
"City Council Earmarks Flow to Brain Scan Group"

Rattled

We apologize in advance to those members of the Nation with delicate sensibilities. If mindless violence towards the meek and helpless disturbs you, you may wish to forego today's column.

WAIT WAIT WAIT! DON'T FOREGO TODAY'S COLUMN! WE WROTE THE THING, AFTER ALL. Just, y'know, try to steel yourselves. . . .

OK, folks, once again, we see in the news that members of that most vile of profession--teachers--are engaging in unconscionable, egregious, violent behavior. . . towards furniture. The good news, though, is that--FINALLY--someone caught a teacher in the act and took appropriate action.

In Atherton, California, an eighth-grade math teacher has been placed on administrative leave for "rattling a table." The teacher--whose identity is being withheld to protect him from lynch mobs--abused the defenseless table in an attempt to "get the attention" of his students. One of his more attentive and presumably neurasthenic students was startled and immediately dialed 911. The police came and found "a calm teacher with a class in session." (No doubt the students were suffering from collective PTSD from witnessing the wanton violence.) The school placed the teacher on leave because district policy requires suspension for an incident requiring a "police response." We are, of course, thankful that this monster has been removed, albeit temporarily, from the classroom, but suspending a known table-rattler on such specious grounds is akin to prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion!

Mr. Teacher-man, you are a role model to your students! You cannot go about rattling tables simply to "get students' attention"! Had you truly--truly--exhausted every other possibility for gaining control of your classroom? Clearing your throat? Saying, "OK, people. . . . Let's focus"? Waterboarding? Why take out your frustrations with the punks of Atherton on a table, whose only crime was to hold your notes and books and papers uncomplainingly all these years? We ask you, have you no sense of decency, Sir?

At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Solipsistography
"Teacher Rattles Table in Class, Student Calls 911"

Bundles of Joy

And by "joy," we mean the polar opposite of joy. Now THAT's sarcasm!

A few weeks ago, frustrated by our perpetually slow internet service at Solipsist HQ, we broke down and signed up for a communications "bundle" from a major communications company that shall remain nameless AT&T. We opted for the "U-verse" package, which included high-speed internet, cable TV, and phone service, all for a reasonable monthly price just slightly lower than the gross national product of Luxembourg. What a bargain! All was going along swimmingly until yesterday when, for no apparent reason, our cable went out. One minute WOS was happily watching reruns of "The Golden Girls" (or whatever), the next--nothing!

Annoying, right? But here's the thing: Now that we were "bundled," we didn't just lose our cable--we lost our internet. And our phone. Solipsist HQ had suddenly become 1800's house.

Well, thanks be to the deity for cell phones: WOS called AT&T and they promised to send someone over immediately. Now, the threat of a maintenance man coming over had the desired effect: Everything suddenly started working again! Until the maintenance man showed up! Yes, folks, as soon as he came over, he informed us that he had checked our lines and there was a problem. Not a problem that prevented things from WORKING, though, so the maintenance guy obviously shut us down out of spite. Not to worry, though, someone would be out by the end of the day to fix our lines--this being an "external" problem that first guy was unqualified to fix.

We waited.

We called.

We waited.

We were assured.

We waited.

We were reassured.

We watched the entire SciFi miniseries "The Lost Room," which we happened to have from Netflix (not bad, incidentally).

This morning, the "external" guy showed up. He fixed everything! Everything, that is, except our cable, phone, and internet. For this, we were told, we would need another "internal" repair call. But BOY do our external lines look great!

We were assured that internal guy #2 would come between 12:00 and 4:00. Around 3:45, the Solipsist got a call on his cell phone (why the call came on HIS phone, when AT&T had been calling WOS on her phone all day is a mystery best left to tje sages). The caller, "Monique," left a message saying she was about ten minutes away and she was hoping that somebody would be there to let her in. Now, we knew that WOS was there to let "Monique" in, so we didn't call her back. We went home for a bite to eat around 4:00. We got home around 4:20. No "Monique." We called "Monique" and got her voice mail. Just checking to see what's going on. . . . Heh. . . Hope to see you soon. . . .

Nothing.

Around 4:45, we had to leave to come back to work for our evening class, but we figured we'd try "Monique" one last time. She answered! "Hey, this is the Solipsist. Uh. . . Are you going to be here soon?"

"Oh, I WAS there, but I wasn't able to get in."

"What?!?"

"Yeah, there's a gate, so I can't come in without permission."

"But the gate was open!"

"I know, but LEGALLY I can't come in without permission."

"Well, why didn't you CALL?"

"I did! I called and said I would be there in ten minutes. You didn't call me back!"

"YOU DIDN'T SAY WE HAD TO CALL YOU BACK!"

"Well, I said 'I hope someone's there to let me in.'"

"SOMEBODY WAS HERE TO LET YOU IN! WOS WAS HERE TO LET YOU IN!"

"Well, I waited out front for fifteen minutes, and nobody called me back!"

"Um. . . So, while you were 'waiting out front for fifteen minutes,' it didn't occur to you, maybe, to try calling again?"

"Well, I guess that would have been a good idea, seeing as how you're angry about this."

"YA THINK?!?"

It's OK, though, Nation. She said that she would come right over. We told her that she HAD PERMISSION to enter. We also told her that we wouldn't be there, but our wife would. The funny thing is that, when she heard she wouldn't be dealing with us, SHE probably thought she was getting off easy.

We just hope WOS doesn't hurt her too badly.

Lock and Load and Matriculate

As an educator, the Solipsist has devoted considerable mental energy to one of the eternal questions of effective pedagogy. Now, we may finally be within reach of the holy grail of higher education: guns in the classroom!

Lawmakers in Arizona--the folks who put the "shun" in "immigration"--are now taking aim at the liberal commie pinko idea that classrooms should be places of intellectual debate, at least putatively free from firearms. If they have their way, professors and others over the age of 21 will have the right to carry guns on campus. The idea is that high-profile shooting sprees both on-campus (see Virginia Tech) and off- (see Tucson) could be prevented if only there were more guns!

(DIGRESSION: Arizona already has perhaps the laxest attitudes towards gun control in the 50 states, and still there were no armed citizens to stop Jared Loughner's rampage at a Tucson shopping mall. Maybe the legislators should consider mandating gun possession? EOD)

We will say this for the pending legislation: If more professors and college students do start carrying guns, it will do wonders for the average IQ of gun owners. But considering the fact that academics are a predominantly liberal bunch, do Arizona legislators really want to arm the opposition?

Money Can't Buy You Friends

Mark Zuckerberg's story drips with irony. Zuckerberg, a Harvard undergrad so desperate to be liked that he created Facebook, the ultimate "killer app" for online socializing, is so socially inept that we find ourselves wondering if anyone will accept his friend requests.

Yes, Nation, we have officially begun our annual getting-around-to-it of watching the Oscar nominees. We watched "Inception" awhile ago, and last night we took in the David Fincher-Aaron Sorkin extravaganza "The Social Network." The film tells an interesting story with a terrific script and good acting. We learn that Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a nerdy genius, who gains our admiration for creating something that pretty much everybody loves, even while being a generally unlikable human being. It is to the credit of Jesse Eisenberg, who plays Zuckerberg, that the main character comes across as even mildly sympathetic. And while Zuckerberg is surely a bright guy, we suspect that a good deal of his genius affect comes from the fact that he is speaking dialogue written by Aaron Sorkin. Everybody sounds like a genius when speaking Sorkin; Sarah Palin would sound like a genius if Aaron Sorkin wrote her material. (Well, OK, the man's not a miracle worker, but she'd sound a lot better.)

The screenplay was based on a book called The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich. Assuming Sorkin's screenplay sticks to the story in the book, we can guess who cooperated with Mezrich and who didn't. Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield), who co-founded Facebook and served as the company's first CFO, comes across as the most sympathetic figure in the movie. Zuckerberg's level-headed superego, Saverin engages in battle with his id, represented by Napster founder Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake); the superego loses. Parker comes across as a fast-talking manipulator of Zuckerberg's essential naivete. And Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (twins played by Armie Hammer), who unwittingly inspired Facebook by recruiting Zuckerberg to design an exclusive Harvard social networking site, are spoiled rich kids who feel entitled to a piece of the Facebook pie.

We're not sure why this should be: The film gives no indication that Zuckerberg "stole" anything from the Winklevi. They wanted to create a Harvard social-network; they wanted Zuckerberg to design it; they gave him neither money nor code; and Zuckerberg went ahead and created the network for himself. It's not as though any of these people invented the concept of social-networking sites; Zuckerberg just tapped into a public desire that already existed--and was already being popularized by sites like MySpace and Friendster--and built a better mousetrap. Where do the Winklevi Twins fit into this? Who knows? Again, though, they may have been less accommodating to Mezrich and/or Sorkin than, say, Saverin was, so all these interpretations may be hopelessly biased.

We can't find any major fault with "The Social Network." At the same time, though, we don't see what all the fuss is about. The film moves along briskly, which is unsurprising with someone like David Fincher at the helm. There's nothing especially "cinematic" about the movie, though. No scenes stand out as exceptionally visually interesting; the settings are mostly dorm rooms and offices. We watched the movie on TV and can't imagine that we missed anything on the big screen.

***************************************
Incidentally, since we've been burned in the past couple of years when we tried to "outwit" the Oscars, our picks this year are just going to be the favorites (and, remember, we've only seen two of the movies):

Best Picture: The King's Speech

Best Director: Tom Hooper (under the theory that the "Picture" director wins--although, of the nominees, we suspect that Darren Aronofsky ["The Black Swan"] did the most "directing." And, we're sorry, but how could Christopher Nolan ["Inception"] not be nominated? Did David Fincher really do a more impressive job with "The Social Network"--where he basically just had to point the camera and say, "Action!"--then Nolan did?)

Best Actor: Colin Firth (While it would be fascinating to see what would happen if James Franco, who's HOSTING the Oscars, won the award, it'll be even more fascinating to see what happens when he loses.)

Best Actress: Natalie Portman (We think this one's a lock.)

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (Again, from what we've heard, this is a lock.)

Best Supporting Actress: Hailee Steinfeld (We don't really know anything about the nominees, and we think we've heard that Melissa Leo is a heavy favorite, but this category seems to go to little girls a lot [see Tatum O'Neal and Anna Paquin].)

And we'll go with "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech" for the screenplay awards (adapted and original, respectively).

If you win your Oscar pool with these picks, be sure to send us our cut.