Month: July 2009

  • no more inspirational stories

    One odd aspect of my persona I’ve noticed lately is that I don’t like inspirational stories.

    No.

    It’s not just that I don’t like them. I can’t stand them. They bore me. Sometimes they sicken me. I don’t want to hear about people who against all odds overcame amazing disabilities or hardships and worked their way up to be happy and content or confident and successful or rich and famous and all the world’s their playground. Blech. No thanks. NO MORE!

    It’s not that I want all my stories to be sad or depressing. I like plenty of fantasy stories where things do work out in the end. But defeating the evil villain in a fantasy is not the same as being an object of inspiration and adoration because of how they changed their whole life around in spite of all the forces going against them or their previous weak willed nature.

    This is why I don’t like reality shows. I mean sometimes I enjoy the performances, but I get fricking tired of the over dramatized glowing adoration trend they all present. I don’t want to hear for the nth millionth time that such and such super talented little kid worked their way up from poverty teaching hisself how to sing or dance or whatever and now he’s going to be famous and rich and might just win a big reality show if only YOU the viewer take it into your bleeding heart to vote for him! You wouldn’t let this poor kid down now would you? Just look into his oh so cute eyes.  Isn’t his courage and determination just an INSPIRATION to us all?

    BLECH!

    Somebody shoot me.

    It’s not that I’m not impressed by amazing feats. I am. It’s just that I’m not inspired by them. Nor do I WANT to be inspired by them.  When I hear about the guy who does so much with no arms and no legs I think “that’s impressive. good for him”. But I don’t think “OH WOW WHAT AN AMAZING INSPIRATION HE IS TO US ALL!!!”  There’s no music playing in my head when I hear about people who went from morbidly obese to normal weight. No slow mo scenes play when I hear about someone with physical and mental handicaps ultimately getting their PhD from Harvard. When I hear about a terminally ill patient who miraculously survives, not a single tear comes to my eye.

    And most of all I DO NOT run out and want to do something. They don’t make me try harder. They don’t make me want more for myself. It doesn’t make me feel good or at peace. It doesn’t make me think wow what a great and wonderful world we live in.

    The same is true when I read inspirational stories on Xanga. I acknowledge the events. Often I am even impressed by them. But I’m not inspired. Often I’m just a little bit bored as I read them.

    And WORST of all sometimes not only do I get bored, I also get nitpicky. I try to find holes in the story. I try to find a way of thinking about it that doesn’t make it seem so impressive. Other times I just criticize the person’s way of thinking that makes it seeem inspirational. Or I criticize the commentators.  Luckily… I do this in my head and not in comments. If I did do comments I’d have many more enemies and be on many more banned lists. As it is I feel horrible just having these thoughts, especially as I read the legions of congratulatory comments by people obviously both impressed AND inspired by the story they’e just read.

    Often I feel like such an outsider. Like I think what is wrong with me? Why do these stories not inspire me the way they do everyone else? Why don’t they make me feel good too?

    I don’t even WANT to ever BE an inspiration to anyone. Even if I one day did something awesome against all odds, I don’t want people thinking it was special. I just want to do normal good things. I definitely don’t need anyone looking up to me or casting me as their hero. Hard enough to live up to my own expectations for myself. I don’t need any others.

    I guess I’m just must more of a cynic deep down than I seem to be.  It’s true I’m positve and optimistic about a lot of things. I really do believe that most things do work out in the end and there’s rarely a reason to worry or panic.

    But I also don’t think life is a fairy tale. I don’t like looking at it that way. And if it was I wouldn’t want to live in it.

  • Xanga’s Hidden Features

    Xanga has a lot of cool things about it that no other social networking site I know of has.

    But you wouldn’t know it by looking at the front page. Sometimes you can be a member of Xanga for a long time and not even notice some of these features.

    Featured Webblog Submission

    Take the Featured Webblog entries. Xanga’s had them forever. But they introduced a feature fairly recently that lets you submit a post to be featured.  Yeah I knew about that. But did you know you could VOTE for your favorite posts that have been submitted to be featured?  I didn’t. I never noticed that VOTE tab until just today. Discovering that prompted me to write this entry.

    And you know I might not have even known you could submit posts to be featured had I not seen a small announcement for it in passing back when it was implemented. I didn’t even read that announcement, I just glanced at it and said “Oh that’s cool” and put it out of my mind.  But you know I bet a great many Xangans never even saw that announcement.  And unless you see the little link on the right hand side of the Featured Webblogs page that says “Nominate a good post by submitting it here. Feel free to submit your own posts!” you’ll probably NEVER know that you can submit posts to be featured.

    Xanga IDEAS

    Ideas are really cool. You can vote on what features Xanga develops. The idea of ideas is awesome. It means people have a say in what happens at Xanga. It makes Xanga more democratic than other sites. It may still be a false democracy because Xanga is a business but even considering user opinion in such a direct and quantifiable way is really unusual for internet sites.

    So how do you find out about ideas?  I have NO IDEA. Pun intended.

    Unless you happen to click on the link that says “More” at the top of the Xanga home page and look all the way down to the second the last link and happen to be curious enough to click on it you’ll have no clue at all that ideas exist.

    The only other way you might learn about it is if you happen to read another blog or see a plug that mentions an idea. And then you might just vote for that idea and never think to go back and peruse all the OTHER good ideas.

    Why These Two?

    Isn’t it weird that these two components are so hard to stumble upon? If anything in order for them to be effective, these features more than most other need as many people to use them as possible.  If only ten people ever know you can submit or vote on featured entries then those ten people can completely control which entries are most likely to be considered to be featured.  Likewise with IDEAS.

    Further if you’re a potential new user and you go to xanga and think “hmm a blogging community, wonder what that means?” Surely you’d want to see that part of what being a community means is that you have a *say* in what gets featured and what features in turn gets implemented. That might make you say “OK, maybe I’ll try this Xanga thing out.” But since you are unlikely to see that these features exist you might well after a cursory glance move off to another blogging site.

    What About Other Features?

    Are there other elements of Xanga that you think are cool that you didn’t notice right away? Things that just slipped through your fingers? For example…

    Did you know about Plugs? Did you know what they were or where they came from or that you could even turn them on? Do you know how to submit your own plug? Do you know what you need to do that?

    Did you know Xanga has featured questions? Have you ever looked at them, or used them for a basis for new ideas for your blog entries?  Did you know you could submit a question to become a featured question?

    Did you know Xanga has tags? Have you ever used them on your blog? Do you ever click on them when you see them while reading another blog? Do you show them on your blog? Do you use them to organize your site?

    How about user tags? Did you ever use them? Do you even know what they do? What the difference is between them and regular tags? They let you send an automated email notifying users that they appear in your blog entry. Ever wanted or cared about that?

    Do you use credits? Do you know what that credit number in the upper right hand corner of your screen even means? Do you ever try specifically to get credits? Do you even notice when your credit count has gone up or down or does a number just kind of magically appear there to you?

    Do you know what a mini is? Do you get it? Do you love them? Or do they seem pointless to you?

    Did you know you can SHARE an entry with other services like twitter, digg, facebook, linkedin, reddit, stumbleupon, delicious, myspace, friendfeed, slashdot, blogger, wordpress, livejournal and many others? Or did you never see that little green share button link on the bottom of each post? 

    Did you know you can use the SHARE also to post a blog entry on your own blog with an automatic link to the blog entry you are replying to? Did it ever occur to you that you could use it that way? As a kind of trackback/blog-reply kind of an option.

    Have you ever emailed an entry to someone? That’s the link right next to share. Do you see an point to it? Have you ever considered using it?

    Do you ever edit your profile? I mean like at all since the day you signed up? How often do you look at other people’s profiles. Does it ever occur to you to try and use profiles to find bloggers to subscribe to with similar interests as you?

    Do you use blogrings? Do you sign up for them? After you sign up for them to you ever check them? Or do they just kinda languish on your page unchecked and virtually unused? Would you care at all if they went away entirely?

    Do you even know what Metros are? I don’t. I’ve never clicked on that link. I see it there taunting me but I just don’t care…

    Did you know you can see people’s protected posts of the people you are subscribed to in the subscription browser of your private home page? I was talking to a friend of mine once who didn’t know that. Had no idea. She never used the subscription browser. Most of the time she used the old home page and was just switching to the universal inbox.

    Did you know you can also see just the Pulses of those people from that page? Or just the photos, video, and audio they’ve submitted?

    Heck did you even know about pulses? Did you know you can post LINKS in pulses? That it can serve a very similar function as a twitter account.

    Did you know you could put your pulse on your homepage?  Surely you must have known that. But how about this. Did you know you can put a list of the entries you recommended on your home page? Did it ever occur to you to wonder what other entries a particular blogger you liked had recommended? There actually is a way to see it if they put that module on their page.

    Did you know you can create custom modules with links to posts or blogs or other external sites you want to advertise on your home page?

    Did you know that if you have premium you can sign up for google adsense and post ads on your blog that can earn you money?

    Did you know your universal inbox has a little link on the right that says “Your Public Feed” from which you can see what posts you’ve been spamming all your friends with? And did you know that  there you can delete things off of your public feed?

    Did you know that there are friend groups you can organize your freinds in? At least there’s a link for them. I just discovered it today. But I couldn’t get it to work.

    Did you know you can set a post to appear on a specific date in the future you specify? Or that you can set a post to appear in the past? Or that you can update a post you already wrote so that its timestamp is now again and hence it re-pops on everyone’s subscription browser and universal inbox (a process called timestamping).

    Sooo Many Features So What Now?

    Xanga has a ton of features. Some or good. Some are great. Others suck. Still others seemed like great ideas at the time but no longer seem to serve a purpose.

    So you tell me. What other features are there? What are Xanga’s beste hidden features that you just happened to stumble upon that had you not you would never have known about? What features could Xanga stand to improve and advertise a little more to make the place more enticing to potential visitors and more fun for the existing users?

    Conversely what features do you think Xanga could do without? What do you think needs to be completely revamped or dropped entirely? Features that may have been cool when they were introduced but nobody uses or even knows about nowadays anyway so they’re just taking up clutter.

    Your thoughts are much appreciated.

  • The Dangers of the Over Personalization of Injustice

    Start with racism. For no other reason than it’s the big topic in the news.

    One of the issues that prevents us from combating social injustice with regards to race is that it always becomes personal.  Racial Profiling for example.

    If you start to discuss the idea of racial profiling, people start to assume that what you mean by that is that the police are racists. That there’s a ton of racist bastards in the police force.  That racists are everywhere. And then soon you have every white person thinking that every black person is calling them racist. Which in turn leads every black person to assume that every white person is calling them racist against whites. 

    The problem is, the whole dialectic is WAAAY too personal. 

    Racist people do exist. There are bigoted people who are bigoted against white people, against black people, against hispanic people, against asian people. They really do exist. And when you meet one it usually does suck.

    But the vast majority of people, really aren’t.

    At least not in the sense or to the degree that it really matters. I mean like the song says maybe “We’re all a little bit racist”, but that doesn’t mean we’re all evil people hating each other, out to get one another, no matter what the case, no matter what the circumstances just because they have a skin color or a racial heritage we don’t like. Most people aren’t. Most people are trying to be the best people they can be.

    People discriminate all the time, but not all the time intentionally. Not all the time vindictively. In fact most of the time not any of those things. People are just usually doing what they’ve always known trying to keep their head down and be normal.

    Even the people who blurt out their racist stereotypical words and insults aren’t always all THAT racist. I mean a lot of them wouldn’t attack a person of the other race, wouldn’t do anything blatantly illegal or cruel just because someone is of the other race. Some would. MOST wouldn’t. Most are just blowing hot air. They might follow a real racist person but they themselves aren’t really that racist.

    So we go to the Sergeant Crowley and Henry Louis Gates incident.  The sad thing about this incident is that some people jumped to the conclusion that Sergeant Crowley was a racist and others jumped to the conclusion that anyone who was defending Henry Louis Gates was CALLING Sergeant Crowley a racist. And that in turn leads to accusations that Henry Louis Gates was a racist or that anyone defending Gates was ALSO a racist. Including of course President Obama. And surely you can see where THAT’S going to lead right?

    Suddenly unless you shut up and said NOTHING about the incident, somebody somewhere was thinking you were a HORRIBLE RACIST BASTARD AND YOU DESERVE TO DIE!!

    But that’s just plain ridiculous.

    I have no belief at all from what I know of the two men that either Gates or Crowley were or are particularly racist. Nor does it seem by all accounts do any of the people who know them think they are. I also don’t think President Obama is a racist. I certainly don’t think *I’M* a racist.

    But I have an opinion. And my opinion is that Gates should not have been arrested. That opinion might change as more evidence arises, but that’s my opinion right now. I generally think that too many people are arrested too quickly all the time. It’s not because he was black that he shouldn’t have been arrested, it’s because there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for him to be arrested. Then again, like I said with more evidence I might change my mind. But I doubt any new evidence that might be revealed would lead me to think that any of the men involved is a racist. At worst I suspect I might conclude that one or the other or both of the men “acted stupidly” and by that I would not mean to imply in any way shape or form that either man WAS stupid. God knows I’ve “acted stupidly” far too many times in the past. For the sake of my  own self-esteem I’m not about to assume that one incident of stupid behavior results in a condemnation of someone’s overall intellect.

    We really need to just chill a little with that idiotic characterization of everyone as being racist. The word is WAY over played.

    The problem is… there doesn’t HAVE to be any racists involved for a racial injustice to occur. Most race problems are systemic. They are institutional.

    And institutional problems are characterized by the State of the System. It’s all about the numbers. If we want to ask about racial profiling, if it’s real, we just look at the numbers. And numerous studies have shown. Racial profiling absolutely exists. In many places around the country black people are convincted more often, arrested more often, stopped more often, ticketed more often even when all other conditions are kept equal.  Across the board. The same is true of hispanics. With particular crimes and violations you can show statistics that show particular racial profiling taking place with regards to those incidents.

    That’s an institutional problem. It’s a REAL problem. Whether or not Gates/Crowley existed it would be a real problem. Even if neither of them have ever had a racist bone in their entire body. It’d STILL be a problem. You just don’t need racists for there to be a race problem.

    In fact that’s ALWAYS been the case. It’s not the case that two hundred years ago every white person was just a bunch of evil dickheads who just decided to keep black people enslaved for the sheer fun of it. Sure there may have been some, but most of those people were just regular people too. They weren’t bad people. They were trapped in a bad system.   A system that institutionalized a belief structure that told them not to look at, pay attention to, or think of as black people as real human beings. A system that promoted certain stereotypes and false perceptions. An system that set black people at a lower level to whites intentionally in order to perpetuate that system.

    There are some bad guys here definitely. Evil people who worked hard to create that system and to perpetuate that system. But not most people. Most people were only guilty of the sin of indifference. And that at times can be a terrible sin, but it’s one that we’re all guilty of almost all the time. People are starving and dieing across the world every moment of every day and we do nothing. Because we’re indifferent. We’re trapped within the system and we don’t have a particular interest in changing it. We just want to be left alone to live our own lives in whatever happiness we can find.  People of every race 200 years ago were the same way.

    But luckily they didn’t stay that way. Some courageous people white and black alike decided that the system was wrong. That it was unjust. They decided that it had to change.  And they knew that without that change in the system racism would forever be a part of the society. And when unjust systems prevail it creates an environment where the truly monstrous can act with impunity.

    But what if instead of trying to change the system, those courageous fighters of civil rights had just focused on individuals. They easily could have. Picked certain people they thought were “evil” and tried to vilify them, call them names, heck maybe even go on vigilante squads to try and execute them.. lynch them. Kill the evil racist bastards!

    It wouldn’t have WORKED. That’s what would have happened. Not only would racism still be prevalent, it could very well have gotten worse. Here’s how.

    People get indignant when you tell them they are bad people. People don’t like to be accused of being evil. When they are told that, they become pissed off. They get mad. They fight back. They start calling the other people names. And soon it’s a fight. And who wins in a direct fight? The group with the most POWER. 

    But thankfully the social justice movements DIDN’T focus on the people. Sure every once in a while they pointed out particularly egregious examples of immorality. But by and large they focused on the system. Changing the system was what mattered. Removing the forces that institutionalized racism was what mattered. Changing the power dynamic was what mattered.

    They didn’t succeed in doing that completely but they made enormous progress. And we’ve been making more and more progress year after year dealing with making a better and better system. Sometimes the world suffers big set backs but there’s a general trend forward.

    So fast forward again to the present and look again at the question of Racial Profiling. What *is* racial profiling? Is it a bunch of police officers acting like jerks? Does it mean law enforcement is evil and we should all distrust them and hate them?

    NO!

    It’s a systemic problem. An institutionalized problem that begins at a cultural level with you and me and everyone else who all unbeknown to them have preconceived notions and ingrained perspectives about one another thanks to the society in which they were raised. It’s an institutional problem that insinuates its way into police forces that are trying to do their job in the best way that they can and in the process whether they know they are doing it or not, according to the statistics, target hispanic and black individuals far more often than they do whites.  And it extends from there to other races and creeds depending on the nature of the suspected crime.

    Part of being a law enforcement officer of any kind is using your instinct to figure out who to stop and where to look for things going wrong. But when people rely on their instincts their inherent internal biases and misconceptions will play a part, however small those biases and misconceptions may be. That doesn’t mean they’re all RACISTS. It just means they’re all HUMAN.

    But if the system is allowed to persist though, those few, tiny minority who actually ARE racist pricks can act with impunity within the system. They’re behavior seems not out of the ordinary because they are just like everyone else. The only ones who know about them are their victims.

    We can’t go on a witch hunt to root those tiny few people out. If we did everybody would feel maligned. It just doesn’t work that way.  First you fix the system. Then the bad apples become obvious.

    How do we fix this systemic problem then?  Well you can’t do it by telling the cops to just “cut it out”. You can’t do it by making a big hubub over Gates and Crowley (thought that might help get people *talking* about solutions).  It’s just not that easy. It’s a hard problem. It’s a real problem. And it needs to be solved. And a lot of that is going to be a slow and steady process. Further integration of police forces. Reducing ethnic crime. Changing the way cultures are portrayed in the media. Changing how people are taught about race in their family, in their churches, and in their schools. More cultural sensitivity training and awareness workshops for police officers and everyone else.  And of course just waiting. Over time future generations become more open to treating people they interact with every day as equals just because they’ve never known any differently.

    Over Personalization of Injustice is a huge problem not just with Race but with virtually ALL injustices.   Take for example Torture. When the scandal broke of the pictures of Abu Ghraib prison, it was a horrible incident. But what did we take from it? We personalized it. What a few really HORRIBLE people. SHAME ON THEM!

    But what was the real problem? It was the SYSTEM in which they operated. The system that CREATED them. It was a system that tolerated anything if it meant stopping the dangerous evil terrorists. It was an institutional problem. But because we focused on personalizing it we couldn’t fight it. And that institutional system is still one people are fighting to change today.

    Move on. All the major debates of the day are constantly OVER personalized.

    Gay Marriage debates involve vilifying gay people on one side and vilifying those “evil” churches on the other. At one point it got so bad as the vilification of “evil” black people for daring to vote against gay marriage in California. Don’t get me wrong, telling people when they’re in the WRONG is important. You shouldn’t avoid it.  But you have to make a distinction, they’re NOT the problem. Some particular person who was raised in a catholic church and taught to be intolerant of gays is NOT the problem. It’s the system that’s the problem. A system that utilizes homophobia to promote the ends of particular persons and institutions.  A system that teaches people from a young age that it’s ok to think of homosexuals as different from everybody else. That’s what needs to change.

    Abortion is similarly over personalized. No matter which side you are on. The man who killed Dr. Tiller personalized it to just stopping a few “evil” doctors. But by doing so he did not promote or further his cause in any meaningful way. The system that allows abortions and the belief of the society that abortion should be allowed remains unaltered despite his efforts.

    Likewise after his murder the tendency on the Pro-choice side was to villify his killer and people like him and in turn it often lead to a villification of everyone who is pro-life as a group.  That didn’t help. That just made people who are pro-life all the more angry and adamant. It didn’t sway anyone to the pro-choice side.

    Neither Dr. Tiller nor the man who killed him are the PROBLEM. The problem is that the culture is on the fence about the system issue of how abortion should be handled in the US. The problem is there is no consensus principle on what is right and no or little legal foundation to back it up. You want to “fix” abortion (whichever side you think has the right fix) you have to change the way people THINK about it. Just calling everybody mean names doesn’t do it.

    When we think about problems of injustice it’s really important to figure out what is causing the injustice to exist. Is it a single person. Is it a group. Is it a business. Is it an institution. Or is it something inherent in the culture. An ingrained way of looking at it.  In short you have to figure out if the problem is system and if it is identify the system that is problematic and fix IT. But if you’re centered instead around finding all the “bad people” and getting rid of them, you’ll end up solving nothing at all. And in many cases you’ll just answer injustice with more injustice making things worse overall.

  • The Great Xanga Round Story – Chapter 11: Evolving Plans

    Author’s note: My profuse apologies in taking so long to get my chapter up. I hope you enjoy.

    The Great Xanga Round Story
    Chapter 11:  Evolving Plans

    Previous Chapter                                  Table of Contents                              Next Chapter

    Susanna glared at the brightly dressed specter that had appeared before her interrupting her reverie. She put the the wine glass down, regaining her composure, and was all business.

    “What do you want Biana?”

    Biana gave Susanna one of her trademark dazzling smiles which only served to grate on Susanna’s already taut nerves. Biana had always been like that. They’d worked together for more than five years and during that entire time Biana had never failed to find ways to make Susanna grind her teeth together. Everything from her flirty demeanor, to those frilly dresses she wore that were decidedly not regulation, to the cloyingly annoying perfume she sometimes wore. It was all so at odds with the bland and dark reality of their work that it never failed to put Susanna on edge.

    It wasn’t that Susanna disliked her, it was just that her perpetually cheery attitude was so damnably annoying. It wasn’t that she wasn’t capable, either. As Susanna had worked her way up through the ranks of the organization Biana had been right there by her side progressing nearly as much. And as more and more authority was thrust upon Susanna she had found herself relying on the petite blond woman much more often. Biana’s super efficient organizational skills were a huge boon and despite her appearance she was excellent in a fight. But it was her other more unique skill set that Susanna had relied upon the most. Indeed she had just been contemplating making use of those skills when the woman had walked in the door.

    Which is why, Susanna thought, it’s such a shame the probability of us continuing to work together for much longer is so slim.

    In quick precise movements Biana took out a report from a plain manila envelop she was carrying and handed it to her superior.

    “The report you wanted.”

    Susanna scanned the document quickly, pursing her lips when she got to the end.

    “They’re behind schedule.”

    “As you know without the entire formula it’s difficult to progress. And dangerous. Director Lars wanted to stress to you again how dangerous it is to even attempt to build this device without knowing the full formula.”

    “He’s knows damn well I need more time to get that out of him.”

    “Lars doesn’t understand why we can’t just tell Gregory the truth. He says he would welcome the help of a man of Gregory’s intellect on his team.”

    “Lars is a simpleton. No matter. He’ll do as he’s told. Tell him to continue on as scheduled…. No…. Wait.”

    Susanna paused calculating probabilities in her head. Biana waited patiently knowing by now how her boss’s mind worked.

    “On second thought…. Tell him I want a prototype done and read to test by tomorrow evening at the latest.”

    Susanna had the satisfaction of watching Biana’s perpetually calm demeanor shatter.

    “T..t…tomorrow? Lars was asking for two weeks at the least and after yesterday’s setbacks he’s thinking he might need a month or more!”

    “I am aware of the existing time line. I want it sped up.”

    “But the risks!!”

    “Tell them to ignore the risks and make it happen or I’ll have their hides.”

    Susanna smiled. She understood Biana’s confusion. It was because Biana didn’t see the whole picture. No one did. Not even her own superiors, she suspected. It was all about the probabilities you see. Gregory was the key. He always had been. The possibility of cataclysmic destruction would only be another lever to push, another variable in the equation.

    “Y…yes ma’am”

    Biana, looking bewildered turned to go.  But Susanna stopped her.

    “I wasn’t finished.” She said the words softly but Biana had learned to read the threat in them.

    But Biana didn’t turn around right away. She took a moment to compose herself before taking the pen from her left ear with a flourish, spinnig around on her heel, and flipping open a notebook ready to take notes on whatever order of business Susanna had in mind. Her dazzling smile was back in place as she met Susanna’s gaze squarely. The woman had guts, Susanna had to admit. It really was a shame. Susanna gave her her most predatory grin in response.

    “Now then. First order of business. For tomorrow’s test we’ll need all nonessential personnel evacuated. However we must maintain the appearance of a fully staffed and operational headquarters. Is that doable?”

    “Easily.”

    “Good. Secondly from now until the test I want to increase our security patrols to one every ten minutes. And double patrols on the hour.”

    Another person wouldn’t have noticed it the ever so slight pause of Biana’s swift elegant pen motions as she took notes. But Susanna noticed. She sighed internally. The probability had just increased again.

    “And lastly I’d like you to take over Gregory’s interrogation effective immediately. I want you to use your more… shall we say… delicate techniques to try and get him to talk.”

    “I thought we’d ruled out conventional torture as being unlikely to be effective on someone like him. The knowledge is too complex and buried too deeply within his subconscious.”

    The probability increases yet again.

    “It doesn’t matter Biana. I want him to be as unstable as possible by the time the tests begin. You can handle that I’m sure.  I’ve seen you break much tougher men.”

    “Of course” Biana said smiling brilliantly. “It will be my pleasure as always.”

    “I’m sure it will. Take Michael and Porter with you when you go. I want them to observe and learn the techniques you use. I’m sure you can find some use for them as well.”

    “Not a problem. Will that be all ma’am?”

    In such a hurry Biana? Oh I wonder why.

    “Yes. You may go now. Good luck. We’re going to be counting on you.”

    As Biana shut the door, Susanna could not help but become lost in the memories of years of working together. It was really quite sad. Susanna had honestly finally begun to like her.  Hell, in time she suspected she might even have gotten used to that stupid nickname Biana insisted on all the men using for her. The name Biana Griggs at least sort of fit her.

    But why the heck would any woman want to go by the name of Biggs?

    Previous Chapter                                  Table of Contents                              Next Chapter

  • even more on “acting stupidly”

    I love facebook and twitter because even though I don’t read the major newspapers and journals, cool people send me links to the most interesting and important stories.  It’s much faster and easier that way.

    Here are two more from the New York Times on the stroy of Henry Louis Gates which is still getting so much traction in the media. I won’t copy the whole articles this time (that’s probably a little shady anyways), but I highly recommend you click and read.

    Bite Your Tongue

    Welcome to the ‘Club’

  • two articles on the “acting stupidly” incident

    Many of you seem to have your mind set on this issue but here are two opinion pieces I think you should read that might shed some light on the matter. Nothing is as simple as it seems. I copied both articles completely because I’m sure many will not read them if I don’t.

    First from the New York Times:  Henry Louis Gates: Déjà Vu All Over Again

    I’m Skip Gates’s friend, too. That’s probably the only thing I share with President Obama, so when he ended his press conference last Wednesday by answering a question about Gates’s arrest after he was seen trying to get into his own house, my ears perked up.

    As the story unfolded in the press and on the Internet, I flashed back 20 years or so to the time when Gates arrived in Durham, N.C., to take up the position I had offered him in my capacity as chairman of the English department of Duke University. One of the first things Gates did was buy the grandest house in town (owned previously by a movie director) and renovate it. During the renovation workers would often take Gates for a servant and ask to be pointed to the house’s owner. The drivers of delivery trucks made the same mistake.

    The message was unmistakable: What was a black man doing living in a place like this?

    At the university (which in a past not distant at all did not admit African-Americans ), Gates’s reception was in some ways no different. Doubts were expressed in letters written by senior professors about his scholarly credentials, which were vastly superior to those of his detractors. (He was already a recipient of a MacArthur fellowship, the so called “genius award.”) There were wild speculations (again in print) about his salary, which in fact was quite respectable but not inordinate; when a list of the highest-paid members of the Duke faculty was published, he was nowhere on it.

    DESCRIPTIONThe Associated Press Henry Louis Gates, Jr., during a book signing in 2006.

    The unkindest cut of all was delivered by some members of the black faculty who had made their peace with Duke traditions and did not want an over-visible newcomer and upstart to trouble waters that had long been still. (The great historian John Hope Franklin was an exception.) When an offer came from Harvard, there wasn’t much I could do. Gates accepted it, and when he left he was pursued by false reports about his tenure at what he had come to call “the plantation.” (I became aware of his feelings when he and I and his father watched the N.C.A.A. championship game between Duke and U.N.L.V. at my house; they were rooting for U.N.L.V.)

    Now, in 2009, it’s a version of the same story. Gates is once again regarded with suspicion because, as the cultural critic Michael Eric Dyson put it in an interview, he has committed the crime of being H.W.B., Housed While Black.

    He isn’t the only one thought to be guilty of that crime. TV commentators, laboring to explain the unusual candor and vigor of Obama’s initial comments on the Gates incident, speculated that he had probably been the victim of racial profiling himself. Speculation was unnecessary, for they didn’t have to look any further than the story they were reporting in another segment, the story of the “birthers” — the “wing-nuts,” in Chris Matthews’s phrase — who insist that Obama was born in Kenya and cite as “proof” his failure to come up with an authenticated birth certificate. For several nights running, Matthews displayed a copy of the birth certificate and asked, What do you guys want? How can you keep saying these things in the face of all evidence?

    He missed the point. No evidence would be sufficient, just as no evidence would have convinced some of my Duke colleagues that Gates was anything but a charlatan and a fraud. It isn’t the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate that’s the problem for the birthers. The problem is again the legitimacy of a black man living in a big house, especially when it’s the White House. Just as some in Durham and Cambridge couldn’t believe that Gates belonged in the neighborhood, so does a vocal minority find it hard to believe that an African-American could possibly be the real president of the United States.

    Gates and Obama are not only friends; they are in the same position, suspected of occupying a majestic residence under false pretenses. And Obama is a double offender. Not only is he guilty of being Housed While Black; he is the first in American history guilty of being P.W.B., President While Black.


    And second from Youth Radio:  Drinking Past Racial Profiling: Obama and the Gates Arrest

    Originally published on Youthradio.org, the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe.

    By: King Anyi Howell

    Pundits lampooned President Obama for his comments about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., accusing him of perpetuating racial division. But as someone who has been a target of racial profiling several times, and was even arrested in front of my home and held in jail over the weekend for fitting the description of a burglar, I felt the president’s comments didn’t go far enough.

    The “post racial America” argument that Gates and others put forth after Obama’s inauguration wasn’t an idea I took seriously. It’s not as though Obama’s assumption of the presidency single-handedly banished racism from the United States, and the clash of egos between Sergeant Crowley of the Cambridge police, who happens to train fellow officers in cultural sensitivity, and Gates, one of this country’s most eminent black scholars, could be the superlative example that the race card is more than in the deck, and on the table.

    When President Obama famously criticized the Cambridge Police Department for “acting stupidly,” he also said that racial profiling is a “fact.” And I would add that it’s not just a fact, it’s abuse. When officers, sworn to serve and protect, racially profile innocent people, just as I have been many times, it leaves people like me feeling unnerved and powerless.

    People joke that I’m King Anyi Howell, the King of getting pulled over, and they suggest that because I drive a Cadillac, I’m more susceptible to racial profiling. But I can say with confidence that Cadillac designers never said to each other, “Yes! With this year’s model we focused on a scientifically advanced design that will get people of color pulled over and searched!”

    I’ve been pulled over in an assortment of vehicles, foreign and domestic, often searched and rarely ticketed. Heck, I’ve been “pulled over” while on a bike and even on foot, belittling the term DWB — driving while black. No it’s more like LWB, and getting a citation for living while black makes me feel like something less than a real citizen. And I certainly don’t feel served or protected.

    Sure regular racism and prejudice are out there, but I care most about racial profiling, because it’s one of the hollowest feelings I’ve ever felt. Most black men know that they can be searched, seized, and detained at anytime by a cop who might simultaneously be taking the “just doing my job” line too seriously and not seriously enough.

    Now that he has invited Gates and Crowley over for a beverage at the White House, and said that he wishes his words were more carefully calibrated, I worry that the president could squander an important opportunity.

    If President Obama is really interested in ushering in an era where racial issues and misunderstandings are understood and resolved, he needs to turn this mess into a teachable moment by organizing a task force to address our many racial divides. Anything less is merely lip service to a serious threat tearing at the unity of our nation.

    And as far as that pint of beer goes, I worry that it may take many shared kegs before we finally come together as a nation.


    Do you still think President Obama and Gates were just “acting stupidly”? If so explain to me why. Why is it that no one has a right to challenge the police’s behavior in this incident or any other? Why is it that Gates is not allowed to be upset when mistaken to be a burglar in his own home?  I just don’t get it.

  • random thought

    I was thinking the other day about solving problems. And it occurs to me that one of the greatest difficulties involved in problem solving is determining which is more important: Finding the Cause  or Correcting the Problem.

    With some problems, it’s much more important to correct the problem. As a programmer I’ve many times encountered issues that I had to solve right NOW. And I would try a few things until I got the problem solved. Understanding what had caused the problem was not really important at all and had I spent many hours striving to discover the reason why such and such was malfunctioning it would have taken me far longer to solve the problem. Nor was it worth my time to look for the cause after the fact, because again having a complete understanding of the system I was working with was unnecessary in order to achieve my ends.  As much as my natural instinct would have been to research the problem to death, I had to make myself back away from the problem and settle for an incomplete understanding just so long as I got the problem solved.

    Still with other problems it’s much more important to find the cause then fixing the problem. A simple example is a problem that is sporadic and unpredictable. In that situation trial and error might result in a solution but you’d never know it for sure. The problem might pop right back up again and you might only think you solved it when in reality you may have caused some other problem.  Also, sometimes knowing why something is malfunctioning can provide more information that helps you improve the systems you are working with as a whole. Whereas if you just fixed it all that additional information would be lost to you.

    Knowing the difference between these two situations can be very difficult. Many times we waste times looking for causes when we don’t need to and many other times we waste all our energy trying to fix something without understanding the cause. It’s one of those challenges you have to deal with in life when you take up the challenge of getting real things done.

  • there are times…

    when I REALLY dislike people who are in love
  • affirmative action

    The other day I heard an interview with Pat Buchanan discussing the nomination and likely acceptance of Sonia Sotomayor as supreme court justice. He was railing at the system that nominated a Latino woman that he considered undeserving.  In his considered opinion Sonia Sotomayor was solely a product of affirmative action and emblematic of a systemic problem in America whereby a white males in particular are discriminated against in the name of fairness. In his opinion there were white male justices who were smarter and better scholars than Sotomayor who should have been chosen to serve on the Supreme Court. And in fact Sotomayor admitted to getting into Princeton thanks to affirmative action which in his opinion was also completely unfair. So she shouldn’t even have had the opportunity to go to that great school let alone do so well in that and her career that she might achieve a level of excellence enabling her to be considered for the highest court in the land.

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s the interview:

    Now you can easily find another segment where Rachel Maddow corrects many of the falsehoods Buchanan states in the interview. And that’s fine.  You should probably look it up and watch it. But for the purposes of this entry I don’t care.  Someone who feels descriminated against because of their race’s history and the color of their skin is unlikely to be convinced by the mere fact that slave labor did in fact contribute to the building of America or the fact that Sonia Sotomayor has a good legal record. That’s all ancient history. What they care about is that affirmative action right NOW is denying them jobs and opportunities that they might be more qualified for. They see Sonia Sotomayor as simply an example of a greater problem.

    It is to those who believe that, that I want to speak.

    Let’s start with the obvious example. College admissions. That’s the important one. The main example where many get the most upset. And is it hard to understand? Imagine a white male high school student who has a dream to attend a particular school only to find he has to work twice as hard to get in as a black female student trying to attend the same school. That would seem unfair on the surface. Two people, same academic records, one gets in, one doesn’t. Seemingly, the other variant characteristic is their racial heritage.

    But there’s a misunderstanding of perspective creating this concept of an inequity. It is not the case that schools are going through applications and tossing aside the ones that are from white students simply because they are white.  Nor is it the case that college admissions is a simple linear ranking system. Admissions departments don’t take all the student applications line them up in strict descending order from the ones who are “best” to the ones that are “worst” and then cut it off after they get the number they want to admit. That wouldn’t be the case even if affirmative action didn’t exist. That’s just not how they do it.

    Instead from what I recall of the admissions departments of the many schools I applied to they described the process as “holistic”. There was a lot of evasion and mumbo jumbo there but the basic principle that ends up coming to the fore is that they are for the most part working under a conception of a threshold system. They are looking for the subset of applicant students who meet the minimal capacity to succeed at the school. And then from that pool of applicants they are selecting the ones they want to attend.

    Interestingly that conception implies an immediate truth. That ALL of those who meet the threshold “deserve” to attend the school. They all have whatever weirdo characteristics the admissions officers believe make someone have the “right stuff” to do well at a particular school.  And in an ideal world, they all would be accepted to the school. Unfortunately, the world is not ideal. The number of slots is not sufficient to accept them all.

    What then happens is a winnowing. That winnowing would happen no matter what. Even if there was no affirmative action. Even if EVERY qualified candidate were white men. A good chunk of deserving people would not get into the school.  The only question then is, how do they select which of the subset is selected?

    Perhaps in an imperfect and yet perfectly fair world, the selection process would be fully random. But then someone who really is truly extraordinary would have to rely on a roll of the dice. Further more, the institution would be relying on a roll of the dice for their student body. It could get a student body with all kinds of random characteristics.

    Whether that’s fair or not it’s not rational to expect a school to make decisions on that basis. Instead, what happens is the school determines IT’S priorities. For private institutions that’s wholly their own business. For public/private institutions they are in part dependent on what the community in which they are situated wants.

    Is it any surprise then that one of those priorities happens to be cultural diversity?  Really. Schools want to attract more applicants and students want to go to a diverse school. Nobody wants to be the only black kid in the entire University anymore than they would want to be the only woman or the only man in a school. 

    Further more they want to create a certain kind of learning environment for the students. Diversity certainly increases student exposure to certain kinds of lifestyles, certain backgrounds and certain experiences. If a school is taking its job seriously of training up generations of well rounded knowledgeable individuals, then ensuring that that training does not occur in a monolithic cultural environment is essential. If a school only has students with similar backgrounds and similar ways of thinking then the students who graduate from that school will end up thinking the same way too.

    Undoubtedly there are other concerns the school uses besides diversity when picking the subset. It’s probably quite a tedious project. Likelihood of a particular student to get accepted somewhere else probably plays a part. Profit motives also probably plays a part. I mean schools need to stay in business. If a child is the child of a large donor that’s going to make them more likely to get in. Likewise if for whatever reason the school thinks this student or that student is more likely to be a high earner AFTER they graduate they will probably be more likely to get one of the precious acceptance slots. Similarly there’s also a needed degree of academic diversity required. Schools need a pool of accepted interested in each major or field they offer so as to ensure that classrooms are not empty or overfilled. They probably have an interest in showing up high on the college ranking lists so they have to accept a certain number of students with high SAT scores even if they think the test is pointless. The may even have a desire to choose students on each side of the political spectrum to ensure that both conservative and liberal voices are heard in the campus environment.

    And there could be any number of other considerations they might take into account. We just don’t know. Maybe they use all of these things I’ve said and maybe they use none of them and wholly different aspects.

    The point is, none of these criteria or whatever criteria they use are likely to be FAIR. It’s going to be the school’s choice based on what it wants to do and what it wants to accomplish. And that means a lot of people will be left out. And that includes black and latino men and women as well. Simply the fact that you worked your ass off in school is simply going to be no guarantee that you’ll get into the college you want. Affirmative action is just one of a whole plethora of likely unfair selection mechanisms that exist in a society.

    Actually in the case of college admissions to certain extent this is a good thing. And not just because it promotes diversity and helps eradicate a historical injustice. But also because a perfectly linear system would be even MORE unfair for everyone. Can you imagine a system that uses a basic formula based on gpa, sat scores, ap classes, and with points given to various extracurricular activities? It would be trivial for those who are in the know to game such a system to position their kids higher in the queue. Get kids into just the right activities that provide the most points and have them attend the schools that are weighted the highest or at which it is easiest to get the highest gpa. And contrary to what the company that produces it wants you to believe the SAT absolutely can be studied for to enhance your score. Basically that would create a bias toward the wealthy and most knowledgeable *parents* and not based on student ability at all. Such biases already exist but this would certainly exacerbate them.

    A threshold system is better. It ensures that no matter what the attendees are qualified. It just does away with the conception or the need to pit every student directly against the others to determine who is “best”. It acknowledges that people are in fact quite radically different and unique. When dealing with the numerous extraordinary students in the world the concept of being “better” losing all meaning. Is the kid who played in a professional orchestra while getting a perfect gpa better than the kid who held three jobs to support his or her family while getting a 3.9? Who can say for sure? The whole idea is absurd.

    Indeed the perfect example of why affirmative action is not such a horribly unfair system exists in Sonia Sotomayor herself.  I mean think about it, if we are saying that a linear system is or ought to exist for college admissions and Sonia Sotomayor should not have been accepted because her achievement level in High School wasn’t high enough, what are we really saying about such a system? That a woman who graduated at the top of her class at Princeton ought not to have been good enough to even attend that school? That a woman so capable that she worked her way all the way up to be in consideration of the highest court in the land should have been left out in favor of others who had higher GPAs? How does that make sense? If the system IS linear with the exception that Sonia Sotamayor was simply allowed to leap frog positions because of affirmative action, that would imply quite obviously that such a system is plainly broken. It is clearly wholly incapable of choosing the best students in the first place. Because a system that worked. One that did pick the best of the best and the brightest of the brightest would have put Sonia Sotomayor at or near the very TOP of the queue regardless of what some silly little high school statistics said about her. Because that’s what her actual performance indicates she’s more than capable of.

    Which brings me to the next example Buchanan brings up of affirmative action. Namely the choice of supreme court justice itself. He suggests that Obama used “affirmative action” to pick Sonia Sotomayor even when she was wholly undeserving to even be in consideration for the nation’s highest court. 

    Again he misses the forest for the trees. He seems to think that picking a supreme court justice is just like he thinks college admissions are, a completely linear system. That there is a one “best” choice for supreme court justice and that’s the person Obama should have picked.

    But anyone actually going through the process of picking the supreme court justice would know that there’s a whole pool of qualified applicants, men, and women, black, white, asian, latino, etc.  It’s just like making any other hard hiring choice. Lots of people deserve it. But only one person can get it. The President and his staff used his own judgment to winnow that pool down to just a few and ultimately to just one final nominee. But it cannot be said of any of those he considered that they were unworthy or undeserving.

    Now why did he happen to pick Sonia Sotomayor? Well that’s something you’d have to ask him. But it’s not a huge stretch to think that political motives did go into the decision. Because she was a latino woman and Obama probably was concerned both with the makeup of the court and with his future election bid.  But it’s ALSO probably the case that Obama had other things in mind which we can only guess at by looking at what kind of background Sonia Sotomayor has. Like it’s highly likely he wanted someone with a lot of judicial and legal experience, since Sonia Sotomayor has tons, more than most supreme court nominees. He probably wanted someone with a working class background who could thus be said to be connected to and understand regular people’s plights because that’s what Sonia Sotomayor has, a background fairly similar to his own. Lastly we might surmise that he wanted someone who understood that we really do bring to the table our own biases and preconceptions no matter how hard we try not to and that a good justice must acknowledge them and face them and try to take that into account when making a decision. We can surmise that from the fact that in speech after speech Sonia Sotomayor has been very clear in emphasizing those very points. It’s also hard to imagine just a general similarity in their political positions didn’t influence the decision process or a general sense of whether the President liked Sonia Sotomayor as a person.

    And are any of those reasons wrong? No. Are they unfair to all the other qualified applicants? Yes. In a sense. In that very sense that life itself isn’t fair. It’s irrational for anyone to expect the President to make a random selection from all qualified applicants. People always act in their own interests. But that DOESN’T MEAN Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t deserve it. From what we know of her background we can most definitely say that she most certainly DOES deserve to be a Supreme Court Justice.

    I am black. I was accepted to every college and university to which I applied including Princeton, Brown, and Swarthmore College.  I graduated at the top of my rather large high school class with a perfect gpa, my SAT scores were nearly perfect, and I got a 5 on every AP test I was allowed to take.  I also like to think I wrote pretty damn good admissions essays but who knows. But I didn’t have a lot of extracurricular activities and those that I had were rather cheesy academic type things that I barely applied myself to. My only awards and recognitions were academic. And I had to stretch to find other things to put on my application to make it look good and to make me seem more balanced.

    Do I think my being black probably made it easier for me to get accepted? Yes, probably. Do I think I might have gotten a couple of rejection letters had the process been a random selection of all qualified applicants or had affirmative action otherwise not existed? Yes, there’s a good chance of that. Do I think that there were some other applicants who probably deserved those acceptance slots as much as I did who didn’t get them? Undoubtedly. Were some of them, a large number of them in fact, white and in particular white males? I’m sure of it. There are lots of people who probably should have gotten in but either for lack of trying or the capriciousness of the system didn’t.

    But do I think for one second that I didn’t deserve to attend those schools? Do I think that maybe I wasn’t good enough to succeed at them or that they made a mistake in accepting me due to some absurd desire to make quotas? 

    NO.

    I totally deserved it. I earned my spot. That someone else may have deserved it too doesn’t in any way diminish my own RIGHT to it.

    And that’s the same thing for Sonia Sotomayor. We can talk about the theoretical background and the social and moral merits of affirmative action until we are blue in the face, and I’m happy to do so here or elsewhere, but none of that will ever change the fact that Sonia Sotomayor is as fully deserving to serve on the Supreme Court as anyone who has ever served.

    Anyone who uses affirmative action to suggest otherwise simply doesn’t know what they are talking about.