Weblog
Friday, 06 November 2009
-
The Gathering Storm and the importance of the Author's Voice
Recently I read the latest book in the Wheel of Time series titled The Gathering Storm. This was the first in a three part finale of the already 11 book long series.
A while back Robert Jordan the author of the Wheel of Time passed away. He was in the process of writing book 12 called A Memory of Light. Brandon Sanderson was chosen to be his successor and finish the series. However, A Memory of Light promised to be so long that the Sanderson together with the family and publishers decided it would be best to split it into three books.
Altogether, The Gathering Storm was a worth successor. It was exciting and intense and the events that transpired fulfilled the promise of the previous books in the series. I very much enjoyed returning to the world of WoT. It was so nostalgic re-experiencing the lives of these characters I've been reading about since I was 12 years old.
But something was... off...
Brandon Sanderson is a skilled storyteller. There's no question about it. I've read his Mistborn series and was surprised by the creativity expressed in his world and simple clarity of the language he used. It was a lot of fun. His fight scenes were perhaps the best part of his stories. They were detailed, fast paced, intense, and immensely entertaining. There's no real question as to whether Sanderson had the necessary skills to complete the series.
When Sanderson was asked he said that he had no intention of trying to imitate Jordan's writing voice. He said that that would be a mockery. He was right. And it was good that he didn't. If he had, I doubt I would have been able to stand reading it.
But Sanderson is not Jordan. And you can tell. I grew up with these books. I'm in love with these characters. And it's... different. It feels like there's like this itch I can't scratch. It's off. It doesn't fit. It just feels wrong.
There were times when I was reading Jordan's words and his descriptions would just strike something within me. The hair on the back of my neck would stand on end. A shiver would run up my spine. It just felt sooo real. So powerful. I was entranced as I read, unable to put it down.
And technically, I can see problems with Jordan's writing. Sometimes his descriptions are just too long. Sometimes his plot dragged. Often I was annoyed with how slowly the story was unfolding. He was by no means perfect. In some ways Sanderson is a superior writer.
But in other ways, he doesn't hold a candle to Jordan.
There was just a way the words flowed. A style to his language that made it unique. It was his voice. His masterful, brilliant, storytelling voice.
The Gathering Storm has some of that. You can see Jordan's touch on the story. It's pretty clearly unfolding according to his plan. At many parts it even feels like Jordan's prose and it probably was since it's well known he wrote as much as he could before he passed. In particular the prologue alone captured me in the same old spell. I was lost in the words same as always.
But at other parts the differences just annoyed me. Even the tiniest differences would remind me that this is not Jordan. And it just made me sad. It made me melancholy. I wondered at what might have been.
In a lot of ways it's the same sort of feeling you get when a copy cat band plays a song from your favorite band. Or if in the old days if a bard's apprentice were to play the epic songs or tell the tales of his master. It might be good. Indeed it might even be impressive, but it's not the same. And that alone is enough is to make it not as good. You want the original. It was JORDAN's vision. It was Jordan's world. Nothing else is the same.
This is why I can't get into fanfiction. The author's voice means a LOT to me. Sometimes, I'll find fanfiction I enjoy. Some writers of fanfiction are VERY skilled. But it's not the same. I just KNOW the author would never write that or do that thing or have the character say this or that, and it just irks me. It's that itch. Always there. I can't banish it from my mind.
I suppose it would have been worse if Sanderson had obviously surpassed Jordan or equaled him in every way. Then it would have felt as if Jordan was replaced so easily and that would have been really sad. But that was never a real possibility. Nobody can write exactly like Robert Jordan because nobody IS Robert Jordan. He's a unique individual who had an amazing extraordinary vision that we are lucky he chose to share with the world.
I'm glad the story is being finished. I love that I'll eventually find out exactly what Robert Jordan dreamed would happen to his characters. I'll read the books as soon as they come out just like I always do. I'll get hours of enjoyment same as always.
But all the time ever mixed with the pleasure will be this perpetual sense of sadness that comes from the knowledge that there will never be another novel, another story, another chapter of writing with Robert Jordan's remarkable unmatched storytelling voice. And I'll remember then how much I miss him.
Thursday, 05 November 2009
-
Guantanamo
This video pretty much speaks for itself.
Tuesday, 03 November 2009
-
What exactly IS blogging?
I've been a member of Xanga for quite a while now. And all the time I've been here there's always been this conflict over what Xanga is that drives the debate over how to reform it.
People ask the question, is it a blogging site or is a Journaling site? Is it a blogging site or a personal webpage generation site? Is it a blogging site or is a Social Networking site? Is it a blogging site or is it a video and image posting site? Is it a blogging site or a wannabe microblogging site? Is it a blogging site or is a network of online collaborative magazines site? And most recently is it a blogging site or is it a forum site?
But I have a much simpler question I want to ask. A question I need an answer to before I can even begin to answer any of those other questions.
What exactly IS a blogging site?
What are the principles that make a blogging site a real blogging site? What are the features a blogging site can't do without? What are the kinds of features that facilitate and enhance blogging as opposed to any or all of those other sites?
Because when I look out at all the online site from facebook to myspace to twiter to gaia online to blogger to orkut to wordpress to livejournal to youtube to linkedin to blogspot to tumblr to deviantart to xanga... and they all tend to sort of blur together in my mind. Features are repeated across each service. As time passes they all tend to copy off each other so much that they all start to feel the same. It's hard to see what the design principles are that separate each of these services.
So I'm asking you. What are the first principles that define each type of internet service? What does it mean when we say we want Xanga to focus on blogging and not trying to be some other kind of site? What are we talking about when we say Xanga operates more like this or that kind of site then a blogging site?
I'm looking to determine a theory of blogging. Can you help?
Friday, 30 October 2009
-
Hate Crimes Statistics
Recently as part of a 680 Billion Dollar National Defense Authorization Bill, President Obama recently signed into law an extension to already existing Federal Hate Crimes Laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of Hate Crimes.
Given this occasion I thought it was a good time to take a look at hate crimes in the United States. There's a lot of misinformation out there about Hate Crimes. People insinuate that the laws exist only to protect certain privileged groups and anecdotal evidence is used to suggest enormous secretly hidden problems that the media "ignores".
We should always be wary about using anecdotes to draw broad conclusions especially when it comes to hate crimes. For example, we ought not think that because some psychopath beats someone up for wearing a red hat that there is some overwhelming epidemic of violence against people who like red hats in this country.
With regards to hate crimes, fortunately we don't have to resort to anecdotes to understand the state of criminal activities motivated by bias and prejudice. We actually have the statistics. The federal government has been compiling numbers on it for years. We even have detailed statistics about hate crimes involving sexual orientation even though there were no protections in the law for those groups until recently. So we have a lot of data. We can look at it and draw real meaningful conclusions.
A word about how the data is compiled. The numbers come from police departments reporting hate crimes to the federal government. The standard they use is not loose. Police departments don't contrary to some rumors immediate conclude that whenever a white person commits a crime against a black person or vice versa that it is a hate crime. Rather, the police investigate the crimes and try to determine the motivation of the person committing the crime. They report it as a hate crime only when they have good evidence that the crime was motivated by a bias against a particular group. Often this is not hard to determine, since the perpetrator admits it quite willingly. Other times it depends on witness reports and the victims testimony about the things the person said while committing the crimes. Likewise other possible motivations are examined and the associations of both perpetrator and victim. In short it's done through normal good police investigative work. To suggest that these reports are incorrect is to suggest a systemic problem with the integrity, honesty, or effectiveness of police departments across the country. That may be true, but you better have some good evidence of that.
On the other hand there's no question that these statistics don't represent the entirety of the phenomena. Like with all crimes, sometimes they are simply not reported. In particular if you do not feel that there is any chance you can get justice for crimes committed against you, you are naturally less likely to bother to report it. We will have to see, for example, if adding protections for sexual orientation will cause more people who are victimized for their orientation to report the incidents. Nevertheless it's hard to imagine that the numbers are not in most cases at least close to proportional to the scale of the problems.
The last important precursor to this analysis is to say that of course hate crimes are not in any way the full total of discrimination and bias in this country. They do tell us something about relative attitudes but taken by themselves they form an incomplete picture of the prejudices that drive our every day lives. Many much more subtle biases influence interactions between groups that never reach the level of crimes or cannot be proven to be crimes.
Now, without further ado let me begin my analysis of the hate crimes statistics. For you to check my numbers you can go here and look at the hate crimes statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
For simplicity I mostly only looked at the last 4 years of compiled statistics, from 2004-2007. I summed the data from these four years to get a more representative sample. I used the offenses counts, as is most commonly used, which is close but slightly different from the incidents counts.
In the four years from 2004-2007, there were 35,469 Hate Crimes Offenses reported, roughly 9,000 a year.
Racial Hate Crimes
1. Judging from the statistics those who say race discrimination is still prevalent are absolutely correct. Indeed by the statistics racial hate crimes are by far the most common. 19,015 hate crimes were racially motivated, 53.61% of the total. That's substantially more than hate crimes motivated by religious bias, sexual orientation bias, ethnicity bias, or disability bias. To be fair, we usually THINK of ethnicity bias as the same thing as racial bias. Usually we talk about "hispanic" as a race but in this study it's considered a part of ethnicity and national origin. When you add those two you get 67.24% of all hate crimes offenses over the four years are motivated by race, ethnicity, or national origin.
2. Claims that there are a lot of hate crimes committed against people who are white because of their race are absolutely right. 20.05% (3,812) of all racially motivated hate crimes offenses are based on anti-white bias. And 10.75% of ALL hate crimes are motivated by anti-white bias.
3. However, claims that there are a lot of hate crimes committed against people who are black because their race are ALSO absolutely right. In fact, anti-black bias is by FAR the largest. It dwarfs anti-white bias by a factor of more than 3. And it's over 4.5 times as high as anti-hispanic motivated hate crimes. 12,892 anti-black motivated hate crimes were commited over the 4 years, 67.8% of racially motivated hate crimes and 35.35% of all reported hate crimes offenses.
4. The claim that people of mixed races are subjected to more hate crimes because they are mixed than members of one or the other of the races are false. Only 1,040 reported cases over the four years were hate crimes motivated by an anti-mixed bias. That's about 2.93% of all the hate crimes offenses. That doesn't mean being mixed will mean you are at low risk of being subjected to racially motivated hate. It's just that the amount of it will probably depend more on which of your parents races you are most identified with.
5. Racial hate crimes motivated by anti-asian and anti-native american bias are much smaller phenomena. Less than 3% of all the crimes were anti-asian motivated and less than 1% were anti-Native American motivated. This probably is mostly indicative of the smaller percentage of the population these groups represent. By 2006 estimates, 4.4% of the populate is Asian and 0.68% of the population is Native American as compared to 74% White only and 13.4% Black only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_demographics#cite_note-32
Religious Hate Crimes
1. People who say there is a lot of hateful persecution of peoples because of their religion in the United State are very correct. Relgious hate crimes represent the second largest group after racial hate crimes. 5,868 hate crimes were reportedly due to anti-religious bias. 16.54% of the total. Still far less than racially motivated hate crimes but definitely not insubstantial.
2. However, those who suggest that christians are the most persecuted groups are absolutely incorrect. Only 486 reported hate crimes were motivated by Anti-Catholic or Anti-Protestant religious sentiment. 1.37% of the total. Relative to the number of people in the country in those religions that's a really tiny number.
3. BUT, those who say atheists and agnostics are highly persecuted are ALSO incorrect. Only 26 hate crimes were reported as anti-atheist or anti-agnostic across the four years. Roughly 0.07% of all reported hate crimes.
4. Although anti-Islamic bias motivated hate crimes is only slightly higher than anti-christian bias motivated hate crimes, the number of such crimes HAS grown dramatically since 9/11. In 2007 there were 133 incidents, in 2006, 191. Over the past four years there were 663 incidents 1.87% of the total and 11.3% of all religious motivated incidents. However, compare that to past years. In 1995 there were only 39 offenses out 9,895. In 2000 there were 33 offenses out of 9,413. And in 2001 there were 546 offenses out of 11,430 total. So the graph of that is a pretty steady line (0.35%-0.41%) followed by a huge spike up to 4.78%, then a drop back down and stabilizing at a point still 4 times higher than it was originally (approx. 1.87%). (An interesting aside is how hate crimes overall increased dramatically in 2001 as an obvious consequence of anger over 9/11)
5. Beliefs that anti-semitism is alive and well are absolutely correct. By far the largest of all groups who reported hate crimes due to anti-religious bias over the last four years were those who reported an Anti-Jewish bias. 3,940 offenses. It's the second highest group after blacks with 11.11% of all hate crimes and 67.4% of all religious based hate crimes.
Sexual Orientation Hate Crimes
1. The fact that there is a lot of hate perpetrated against people because of their sexual orientation is undeniable. At 5,452 offenses, 15.37% of the total sexual orientation bias motivates almost as many hate crimes as religious bias and is the third highest broad category over the last four years.
2. Those who make the claim that gay men suffer a disproportionately large amount of that hate are clearly completely correct. 3,313 offenses over the last four years were reportedly fueled by Anti-MALE Homosexual bias alone. That's 9.34% of all incidents and 60.77% of sexual orientation based hate crimes. That does not include a separate 1,180 offenses which were reported as general anti-homosexual bias many of which of course were also perpetrated against male homosexuals. In contrast specific anti-female homosexual bias fueled only 757 (2.13%) of incidents. Though of course some of those general anti-homosexual bias also were targeted against women.
3. Claims of a large phenomena of Anti-heterosexual backlash by the gay community are HIGHLY exaggerated. Over the last four years anti-heterosexual hate crimes made up only 113 incidents, less than a tenth of even just the generalized anti-homosexual incidents. It's only 0.32% of all hate crimes reported. That's more than anti-atheist hate crimes but substantially less than any other category except for anti-bisexual bias which makes up only 0.25% of all offenses. Anti-heterosexual hate crimes make up 2.07% of all hate crimes based on sexual orientation. So that means although those crimes exist, it's vastly dwarfed by the numbers of hate crimes perpetrated because of hatred of members of the LGBT community.
Ethnicity Hate Crimes
1. Anti-hispanic hate crimes are substantial and steadily growing but are not as large as one might expect given what is often perceived as anti-hispanic rhetoric involved in anti-illegal immigrant movements. Overall 2,816 offenses were reported as due to anti-hispanic bias. While that's MORE than the total incidents reported for negative sentiment against all other ethnicity or national origins COMBINED (2018) it's considerbly LESS than anti-white, anti-jewish, and anti-male homosexual offenses. It's 7.94% of all offenses over the last 4 years of data gathered.
Mysteriously Missing Categories
Hate Crimes statistics are not perfect but it's interesting to note that there are certain categories that simply do not show up at all in statistics. Most notably is that there are no Gender based statistics at all. I find it hard to believe that there aren't people who are violently attacked because of an inherent bias in the perpetrator against their specific gender, especially women. While, I can understand that it might be hard to determine in some cases whether someone has an inherent bias against women or for that matter men, but surely some of these other categories are equally difficult to ascertain. It would be nice if we had those numbers to look at.
And of course akin to gender there are no categorizations for Anti-transgendered bias. There are plenty of examples in the media of people being abused for being transgendered. I find it hard to believe that these incidents are simply never reported. More likely there is no rule requiring gathering of gender or gender identity hate crimes statistics so these categories are left out.
Conclusions
So if we were to be tongue and cheek and look at these numbers as if it were a horse race. You might get an account something like this:Anti-Black bias is far and away in first place, dominating the competition with 36.35% of the incidents, more than three times its closest competitor. Having a black President aside, racism against blacks still an overwhelmingly powerful force in this race. It doesn't look like anybody can catch him.
Coming up strong in second is still going Anti-Jewish bias. 11.11% of all incidents. It may not be at its peak condition like it was in the good old days of the holocaust, but Anti-Jewish still knows how to run a good race. You'd be a fool to count him out.
Riding in close on Anti-Jewish's heels in third place is Anti-White bias. 10.75% of incidents means that there is definitely some reason for the anti-Jewish to be worried. So called "reverse-racism" is a strong force and it's not about let some puny religion take away its silver.
9.34% puts Anti-Male Homosexual a bit further back in fourth place. But Anti-White needs to watch its back Anti-Male Homsoexual is growing faster and they're a part of the anti-LGBT elite training crew. They're not going to be taken down easily.
Coming in in a good 5th place is underdog Anti-Hispanic bias. It's lagging quite a bit at 7.94% but it's been increasing steadily every single year. If I were Anti-Male Homosexual I would not rest easily on my lead. It's still anyone's game.
The rest of the pack lags far behind the top five. But none of these forces seem like they're going to quit anytime soon. Did you see that huge burst of speed Anti-Islamic bias put on out of nowhere back in 2001? Trust me, nobody's giving up here. They're all looking determinedly toward the gold. It's a race. The whole world looks anxiously on waiting to see what happens.
Obviously I'm joking :)
Straight comparisons like I've been making in this document are never the best thing in the world. Especially when I'm not really factoring in relative population sizes nor even looking at all the data but a small four year segment.
But more importantly, sometimes comparative reasoning can cause us to forget the absolute significance of every single incident. To be fair ALL hate crimes are terrible things and we should not tolerate any perpetrated against any group. Deciding you want to hurt or steal from someone or destroy someone's property because you don't like the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their religion, or their country of origin is inherently a sick and deplorable thing to do. Even though they are comparatively small numbers, every time anyone is victimized because they are an atheist or an agnostic or because they are straight or bi is still just as much of a tragedy as when someone is victimized because they were white or black or Jewish.
That being said, studying these statistics CAN give us a sense of relative perspective. That's a very important thing to have and in a lot of debates I see perspective is quickly lost in our fervor to assign blame and express our outrage. Knowing the scale of the problem at least as measured by bias-motivated crime can give us a much better sense of where to exert our efforts and can help us to not be misled by misleading anecdotes or false cries of extreme disproportionate persecution.
If someone proclaims that white people in America suffer a substantial amount of violence and crimes perpetrated on them because they are white, agree with them. It's true. It's irrefutable. But if someone proclaims that we live in an era where white people are as a group by and large overwhelmingly oppressed by this society or THE most oppressed group, be skeptical. Despite being in the vast majority of the population, they are not the greatest victims of hate crimes, nor are they even in second place. And in particular there are more than three times as many anti-black crimes of hate perpetrated each year as anti-white.
Likewise if someone proclaims that people are sometimes victimized because they are Christians or because they are Atheists, don't doubt it. Both phenomena really do happen in the United States. However, if someone proclaims that either being Christian OR being atheist makes them an obvious target for overwhelming amounts of religously or anti-religiously motivated violence, be doubtful. Anti-Christian bias represents a relatively small amount of overall hate crimes each year and anti-Atheist bias represents a seemingly minuscule amount. If any group should be complaining about religious persecution in America it should be followers of the Jewish faith.
And of course along the same vein if someone complains that they saw violence perpetrated against heterosexuals by gay activists in retribution for their expressing their belief that gay people should not be married, accept it. Anti-heterosexual bias does motivate hate crimes. But if someone tries to make that a call to action or to use it to smear homosexuals altogether as a violent or dangerously biased and hateful group, be both skeptical and doubtful. Indeed, tell them they are being silly. Hate crimes perpetrated because of hatred for LGBT individuals is almost 50 times more frequent than hate crimes committed due to anti-heterosexual bias.
A little perspective can go a long way.
It's far too easy when you see a travesty or when a tragic injustice is perpetrated against you or someone you know, to think that that injustice is representative of the overwhelming pattern of the world. You think well I was attacked because of my race or gender or religion or orientation, I never even imagined that could happen to me, therefore, it must be happening all over the place. It must not only be prevalent. IT must be THE most common phenomenon. What's more you have a tendency to start to look for other cases that validate your perception. Every other injustice perpetrated against your group stands out in stark relief to you. It seems like the whole world is against you and your kind and you look around and it seems like nobody is willing to recognize it. It seems like nobody is willing to DO anything about it. And so we get outraged. We get feel afraid and alone and that makes us angry and disgusted at society as a whole.
We need to calm down and take a step back though. Our own experiences are not the only experiences. Sure lots of groups are victims of hate, but so are lots of others. Rather than dwelling on how screwed up that my group happens to be persecuted by this or that other group, maybe we ought to be more united in our anger at the very idea of crimes based on hate. We ought to fight not to protect us, meaning the groups we happen to through accident of birth be associated with, but to protect US, meaning everyone from the scourges of unthinking irrational hate.
Hate Crimes legislation exist to try and discourage and prosecute ALL incidents of hate crimes. It's not, contrary to what some believe a measure to try and oppress White people or Christians or Heterosexuals or whatever. It's not a vindictive plan to gain revenge against any one group. It's an attempt to prevent the prevalence of the very idea of crimes based on hatred. It's to say that we as a society find those acts UNACCEPTABLE. No matter who they are done to.
I totally understand objections to such laws because of possible constitutional double jeopardy concerns, but I hope that even so we can all agree that reducing the number of all of these kinds crimes is an admirable goal that we should strive for as a society. And certainly it was very unfair for hate crimes laws to exist that recognize hate crimes on the grounds of race and religion but decidedly don't recognize hate crimes on the grounds of sexual orientation. Not when over 15% of all incidents are in fact orientation based. That's an absurdly unfair situation. Whether or not hates crimes legislation ought itself exist or be necessary, surely now, at least they are a bit more fair.
In any case if you reject hate crimes laws on principle, that's fine. But don't disavow or miss-characterize the problem. We need to as a society do something about people who let their prejudice drive them to victimize others. It's not an easy problem to solve but I think it's an overwhelmingly important one to try to solve. And part of reaching that solution depends on our getting good accurate data about the nature of the problem so we can try to solve it. Hence it's really important to take a minute every once in a while to take a good hard look at hate crimes statistics and try to learn as much as we can from them.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
-
What are some of the Alternative and Independent Media resources you consume?
I'm curious as to what you use for independent alternatives to mainstream news, radio, television, and entertainment? List whatever resources you consume in the comments and what you like about them so others can try them out.
I'll start the ball rolling by listing some of my favorite resources. Obviously they will reflect my tastes which these days leans toward news and politics and since I'm a leftist the resources I plug will be those that reflect an opinion that I believe to be trustworthy or reliable at least most of the time. That being said, please don't believe I am trying to bound the conversation toward my own interests. Feel free to add your own be it, alternative music stations, alternative radio, alternative gaming, alternative movies, alternative comedy, alternative books, educational resources, etc.
Some of My Favorite Alternatives
Weblog Archives
Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save"
above and refresh the page.


True
Lifetime