Representative Bobby Rush was escorted off the floor of the House of Representatives this morning (Wednesday 3/28) for wearing a hoodie. When I say "for wearing a hoodie", I mean that that was the pretext on which he was kicked out while reading a speech about racial profiling and the controversy surrounding the killing of Trayvon Martin. (If you are not aware of this controversy, please read this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/ ).
Rep. Rush was about a minute into his remarks when he removed his suit jacket to reveal a hoodie and then raised the hood. Just 5 seconds later, the gavel banged and Rep. Gregg Harper, who was Chairing the proceedings, attempted repeatedly to halt Rep. Rush's remarks. When Rush attempts to continue his speech, he is escorted out. Harper says, "The Chair must remind members that Clause 5 of Rule 17 prohibits the wearing of hats in the Chamber when the House is in session." (He is, of course, correct on this point: http://www.rules.house.gov/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=138&rsbd=165 ).
What gets me is that this had to have been planned. Five seconds is not enough time for someone to note the rule violation, decide to enforce it, and communicate that to the Speaker. A decision must have been made ahead of time to enforce the no hats rule in order to shut down speech on the topic when the issue inevitably rose. (Again, if you're not aware, people have been wearing hoodies as a show of support for Treyvon, who was killed in one and who has been accused of making himself suspicious and contributing to his own death by his choice of clothing).
Do you know what Rush was saying as he raised his hood and as Harper first banged the gavel to shut him up? He was saying "Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie, does not make him a hoodlum." I am sickened by Rep. Gregg Harper and whomever else was involved in the decision to silence Rush and others who would speak on this topic in a hoodie. They are the hoodlums, the criminals, these people who would try to shut down a national discourse on the topic of race and profiling following a tragedy. They who would be so cowardly as to use a pretext, a technicality, to do so. I wish Rep. Gregg Harper was my Representative so I could help vote him out of office this year.
Please watch the video here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/03/bobby-rush-dons-hoodie-on-house-floor-in-support-of-trayvon-martin.html
The second half of Rep. Rush's speech is significantly disrupted by the Speaker's attempts to silence him. I think what he had to say deserves to be heard. I couldn't find a transcript, so here's my best attempt. I left out the shameful interruptions of the Speaker. They are not substantive and add nothing to the dialog on this issue. The *stars* indicate actions.
"Thank you Mr. Speaker. It is indeed an American tragedy. Too often this violent act that resulted in the murder of Trayvon Martin is repeated in the streets of our nation. I applaud the young people all across the land for making a statement about hoodies, about the real hoodlums in this nation, Particularly those who tread on our laws wearing official or quasi-official clothes. (*Removes suit jacket to reveal hoodie*) Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. (*Raises hood*) Just because someone wears a hoodie, does not make them a hoodlum. (*Swaps glasses for sunglasses*) The bible teaches us, Mr. speaker in the book of Michael 6:68, these words, these words: 'He has shown your man what is good. What does the Lord require you but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God'. And in the New Testament, Luke 4, 4:18-20 teaches us these words: 'The spirit of the lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and to recover sight to the blind, to set the oppressed free'. I urge all who hear these words to heed these lessons. May God bless Trayvon Martin's soul, his family, and..."
That's where the sound from the podium trails off. I can't hear the last few words. Rep. Rush is off screen at this point, but it sounds like he is trying to say his last words while being escorted away from the podium.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
2012 Reading 3: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Did I miss the point? Knowing only that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick was a relatively early book on artificial intelligence, I
expected a thoughtful exploration of what it means to be human. Here's
what I got: The main character Deckard, an android bounty hunter, starts
out believing that the ability to empathize is what separates humans
from androids. After conversations, confrontations, and even sex with
androids he eventually concludes that... yep, the ability to empathize
is what separates humans from androids. Seriously... that's it?
For background, Dick's androids are nearly indistinguishable from humans. They are
made of flesh and blood like humans, speak and move like humans, die
like humans. The only way distinguish them while alive is to test their
reactions to emotional stimuli. Since they lack the ability to
empathize, their emotional responses are faked and slightly slower than a
human's. The only way to distinguish them when dead is to test their bone
marrow.
Dick touches on but doesn't explore a number of interesting issues:
1. The morality of slavery: is an androids in any way justified in killing their master in order to escape to freedom? What if there is no way for them to gain freedom without killing?
2. Mood control: if you could dial up any possible mood on a machine, would you? Joy, rapture, perfect contentment, at the touch of a button. Would you ever, like Deckard's wife, dial up depression?
3. Empathy: Is the lack of an ability to empathize automatically make a person dangerous? Can it be expected that since androids can't empathize they will eventually do harm?
Any thoughts?
Movie Review: Disney's "Tangled"
I just watched what could have been, and *ALMOST* was, the best Disney movie I've ever seen. "Tangled", a retelling of the Rapunzel story, came close to being something really special before a rushed and contrived ending spoiled it.
First the good points:
In Rapunzel, we have a sweet, confident, and capable heroine. She paints, sings, plays chess, studies geometry, does her own cleaning and baking, and dreams ardently of the future.
While sometimes pretty campy (instantly redeeming a nest full of criminals by invoking their secret dreams?), the movie is full of great characters, images and scenes. It's full of references to other Disney films, particularly "The Emperor's New Groove".
There are some wonderful scenes of joy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=chppF5jqKNw#t=94s
And of the tangled excitement and anxiety of growing up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVovNi55HrU
But I have one huge complaint:
Mother Gothel, the witch who kidnaps and raises Rapunzel, is as close to a morally ambiguous character as I've ever seen from Disney. In fact, for the first 90% of the movie, she is truly ambiguous. She kidnaps Rapunzel for the youth-sustaining qualities of her hair, but it is clear that in raising the child, the witch has come to love her. Not as much as she loves the eternal youth that Rapunzel grants, but as much as she can. There's an exchange that occurs 2 or 3 times in the movie, Mother Gothel: I love you. Rapunzel: I love you more. Mother Gothel: I love you most. The first two statements are true, it's only the third that's a lie. Yes she is manipulative, self-serving and condescending with a barbed sense of humor, but those are human qualities, not evil ones. She locks Rapunzel away in a tower to horde her magic, but she stocks the tower with every supply and activity Rapunzel could want. She brings ingredients to cook Rapunzel's favorite supper, she sets out on a 3-day journey to get a particular paint that Rapunzel favors. None of these are necessary to maintain the magic of the hair, they are the acts of a mother who loves her daughter and wants her to be happy, so long as it doesn't require that mother to sacrifice her youth.
In order to get Mother Gothel out of the way so that Rapunzel can reunite with her biological parents and live happily ever after, Disney radically alters her character and Rapunzel's. Until this point, Mother Gothel used manipulation and conniving to prevent Rapunzel's leaving the tower and then to lure her back when she does leave. Here she abandons cunning and resorts to brutal violence, stabbing Eugene, Rapunzel's love, in the belly with a knife. Leaving aside how shocking this is in a Disney movie, it is completely out of character! Rapunzel's sweet little chameleon friend then trips Gothel with Rapunzel's hair, causing her to fall from the tower, presumably to her death. Rapunzel, aside from a gasp, is completely unaffected by the death of the mother she has loved for 18 years. She saves her beloved, is reunited with her biological parents, and lives happily ever after, presumably without another thought of the mother killed by her friend. We are presumably to understand that murder is okay, as long as the victim is an ugly witch. That love redeems and endures, except not for Mother Gothel.
In the end, I was terribly disappointed. There was absolutely no need for the hack job of an ending. A much deeper and more interesting story could have been told with just a little more creativity. Alas, perhaps that's not what we watch Disney for. Perhaps the simple black and white is what viewers want, but I think a real opportunity was missed here.
First the good points:
In Rapunzel, we have a sweet, confident, and capable heroine. She paints, sings, plays chess, studies geometry, does her own cleaning and baking, and dreams ardently of the future.
While sometimes pretty campy (instantly redeeming a nest full of criminals by invoking their secret dreams?), the movie is full of great characters, images and scenes. It's full of references to other Disney films, particularly "The Emperor's New Groove".
There are some wonderful scenes of joy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=chppF5jqKNw#t=94s
And of the tangled excitement and anxiety of growing up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVovNi55HrU
But I have one huge complaint:
Mother Gothel, the witch who kidnaps and raises Rapunzel, is as close to a morally ambiguous character as I've ever seen from Disney. In fact, for the first 90% of the movie, she is truly ambiguous. She kidnaps Rapunzel for the youth-sustaining qualities of her hair, but it is clear that in raising the child, the witch has come to love her. Not as much as she loves the eternal youth that Rapunzel grants, but as much as she can. There's an exchange that occurs 2 or 3 times in the movie, Mother Gothel: I love you. Rapunzel: I love you more. Mother Gothel: I love you most. The first two statements are true, it's only the third that's a lie. Yes she is manipulative, self-serving and condescending with a barbed sense of humor, but those are human qualities, not evil ones. She locks Rapunzel away in a tower to horde her magic, but she stocks the tower with every supply and activity Rapunzel could want. She brings ingredients to cook Rapunzel's favorite supper, she sets out on a 3-day journey to get a particular paint that Rapunzel favors. None of these are necessary to maintain the magic of the hair, they are the acts of a mother who loves her daughter and wants her to be happy, so long as it doesn't require that mother to sacrifice her youth.
In order to get Mother Gothel out of the way so that Rapunzel can reunite with her biological parents and live happily ever after, Disney radically alters her character and Rapunzel's. Until this point, Mother Gothel used manipulation and conniving to prevent Rapunzel's leaving the tower and then to lure her back when she does leave. Here she abandons cunning and resorts to brutal violence, stabbing Eugene, Rapunzel's love, in the belly with a knife. Leaving aside how shocking this is in a Disney movie, it is completely out of character! Rapunzel's sweet little chameleon friend then trips Gothel with Rapunzel's hair, causing her to fall from the tower, presumably to her death. Rapunzel, aside from a gasp, is completely unaffected by the death of the mother she has loved for 18 years. She saves her beloved, is reunited with her biological parents, and lives happily ever after, presumably without another thought of the mother killed by her friend. We are presumably to understand that murder is okay, as long as the victim is an ugly witch. That love redeems and endures, except not for Mother Gothel.
In the end, I was terribly disappointed. There was absolutely no need for the hack job of an ending. A much deeper and more interesting story could have been told with just a little more creativity. Alas, perhaps that's not what we watch Disney for. Perhaps the simple black and white is what viewers want, but I think a real opportunity was missed here.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Get out and vote...Republican!
Hey guys, tomorrow is Super Tuesday, the day when 10 states including Massachusetts hold presidential primaries or caucuses.
While the Democratic primary is not very interesting, MA voters registered as "Unenrolled" (commonly called "Independent") can vote in either primary.
Liberal-leaning unenrolled voters like me could vote in the Republican primary in a number of interesting ways:
1. Vote for the candidate they think they could live with as president (Romney for me - he's a moderate pretending to be a conservative and probably wouldn't do anything too horrible)
2. Vote for the candidate it would be satisfying to see Obama smush (Santorum for me - he panders to the lowest common denominator on crutial future-determining issues like education; yuck!)
3. Vote for a candidate who has no shot but stands for something you believe in (Paul for me - the only candidate in either party who seems interested in defending basic freedoms)
If you're not sure if you're registered or what party you're registered with, you can check by calling your town clerk's office, list here:
Check your registration status:
If you know you're registered at your current address, you can check your voting location with this tool:
Have fun!
Reading List 2: Dune
WARNING! This review is meant for folks who have already read Dune and thus is replete with spoilers. Since the book gives its own spoilers as part of the literary style, this is less of an issue than you might think, but you should probably still avoid reading if you plan to read Dune in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------
While I very much enjoyed Dune by Frank Herbert, most of the parts of the story-universe that I found most interesting were the parts he alludes to and never explores. He implies a massive plot by the Bene Gesserit to seed "prophesies" on various worlds for later use. Are these prophesies "real" - some kind of non-human source, or "fake" - fabricated by the Bene Gesserit entirely for their own purposes? He mentions that before "the Great Revolt" there were machines that mimicked human minds but never brings up the topic again. The reader glimpses the results of "Imperial conditioning" and "Bene Gesserit training", but next to nothing of the methods. He suggests that there might be two kinds of human-shaped creatures - a human variety and an animal variety, but only deals with the concept in one scene. The story he does tell is reasonably interesting, but it almost disappoints in contrast with the promise of the stories he doesn't tell. I can only hope that more is illuminated in the sequels.
Herbert has what I consider to be a very annoying habit of telling the reader what is going to happen in the story. It puts me in mind of the titles of books chapters in older books, things like "Chapter Three In Which Pooh and Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle". You know before you start the chapter that no woozle will be caught. Herbert does this in the form of prophesies made early on by characters and by chapter-beginning excerpts from the history books of the story's future. The Reverend Mother foretold that Paul's father would die soon, and I was unable to connect to the character as I anticipated his imminent demise. She foretold that Paul would be the Kwisatz Haderach, and I waited bored as he grew into that role. In my opinion, clear/obvious prophesies as a literary device are to be avoided. I enjoy a good cryptic prophesy. I enjoy a prophesy that the hero manages to subvert through clever means. I do not enjoy being told what unfortunate event will occur and then waiting for the shoe to drop.
Flaws aside, the book contained a number of beautiful and interesting ideas. I was fascinated by the concept of terra-forming a desert planet through a generations-long process of collecting water and gradually introducing plant life, starting with the hardiest desert scrub, that would slowly enable more and more varieties of plant and animal life. I enjoyed the idea of a group rides on the massive sandworms and loved the rational behind how they are controlled.
I was impressed by the eloquence of a number of ideas about leadership, individuality, and religion. I particularly enjoyed "A leader, you see, is one of the things that distinguishes a mob from a people. He maintains the level of individuals. Too few individuals, and a people reverts to a mob." and "Give as few orders as possible...Once you've given an order on a subject, you must always give orders on that subject." and "When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully conscious, fully aware of yourself. You are always a little less than an individual."
Naturally I can't neglect to mention the famous "Fear is the mind-killer." (This was intoned to me in a deep, serious voice by a complete stranger who saw me reading the book at work). It resonated with "Fear cuts deeper than swords", a line from A Game of Thrones which I keep on my wall at work. But the greatest impact for me came from "You cannot back into the future." The future must be dreamt of, planned for, and faced head-on, whether you can see into it like Paul or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------
While I very much enjoyed Dune by Frank Herbert, most of the parts of the story-universe that I found most interesting were the parts he alludes to and never explores. He implies a massive plot by the Bene Gesserit to seed "prophesies" on various worlds for later use. Are these prophesies "real" - some kind of non-human source, or "fake" - fabricated by the Bene Gesserit entirely for their own purposes? He mentions that before "the Great Revolt" there were machines that mimicked human minds but never brings up the topic again. The reader glimpses the results of "Imperial conditioning" and "Bene Gesserit training", but next to nothing of the methods. He suggests that there might be two kinds of human-shaped creatures - a human variety and an animal variety, but only deals with the concept in one scene. The story he does tell is reasonably interesting, but it almost disappoints in contrast with the promise of the stories he doesn't tell. I can only hope that more is illuminated in the sequels.
Herbert has what I consider to be a very annoying habit of telling the reader what is going to happen in the story. It puts me in mind of the titles of books chapters in older books, things like "Chapter Three In Which Pooh and Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle". You know before you start the chapter that no woozle will be caught. Herbert does this in the form of prophesies made early on by characters and by chapter-beginning excerpts from the history books of the story's future. The Reverend Mother foretold that Paul's father would die soon, and I was unable to connect to the character as I anticipated his imminent demise. She foretold that Paul would be the Kwisatz Haderach, and I waited bored as he grew into that role. In my opinion, clear/obvious prophesies as a literary device are to be avoided. I enjoy a good cryptic prophesy. I enjoy a prophesy that the hero manages to subvert through clever means. I do not enjoy being told what unfortunate event will occur and then waiting for the shoe to drop.
Flaws aside, the book contained a number of beautiful and interesting ideas. I was fascinated by the concept of terra-forming a desert planet through a generations-long process of collecting water and gradually introducing plant life, starting with the hardiest desert scrub, that would slowly enable more and more varieties of plant and animal life. I enjoyed the idea of a group rides on the massive sandworms and loved the rational behind how they are controlled.
I was impressed by the eloquence of a number of ideas about leadership, individuality, and religion. I particularly enjoyed "A leader, you see, is one of the things that distinguishes a mob from a people. He maintains the level of individuals. Too few individuals, and a people reverts to a mob." and "Give as few orders as possible...Once you've given an order on a subject, you must always give orders on that subject." and "When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully conscious, fully aware of yourself. You are always a little less than an individual."
Naturally I can't neglect to mention the famous "Fear is the mind-killer." (This was intoned to me in a deep, serious voice by a complete stranger who saw me reading the book at work). It resonated with "Fear cuts deeper than swords", a line from A Game of Thrones which I keep on my wall at work. But the greatest impact for me came from "You cannot back into the future." The future must be dreamt of, planned for, and faced head-on, whether you can see into it like Paul or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)