The law and … comic books?

On my way home today, I heard on All Things Considered a piece about how Japan Disaster Strikes Home Among Anime Fans.One Philadelphia conventioneer this past weekend said,

"We're not just worried about our anime being cut off," he said firmly. "We're actually concerned for the people there."
The latter sentiment is obvious and welcome. But I can't wrap my ahead around the anime part. I happen to be not just anime-averse, but moved to the point of actually passing judgment on fans and applying more than salty adjectives to the medium. But Japanimation aside, NPR followed that segment with one just as interesting. Melissa Block spoke with blog authors (and attorneys) James Daily and Ryan Davidson about their blog Law and the Multiverse. The two turn their
attention to the hypothetical legal ramifications of comic book tropes, characters, and powers.
Sidebar: I only watch one sitcom on television - The Big Bang Theory - in which the nerdy characters talk occasionally about comic book character. I laugh because the writing and acting are quite funny, but never having developed any interest in comic books past the age of maybe 12, I can't relate to Sheldon Cooper et al on that particular recurring thread. Nor can I relate to the nerdy lawyers on NPR and their musings on how the law would affect the statute of limitations and time traveling super heroes. Or can I? I recall a discussion in high school (I actually only observed and didn't participate ...that time) in which friends were debating the merits of a phaser (Star Trek's Starfleet issue, Type-2) over a Space 1999 stun gun (this would have been around 1977, pre-Star Wars and definitely before Battlestar Galactica ). The back-and-forth went on for a while before someone mentally slapped his forehead and blurted out, "Guys! We're arguing about fictional weapons. They're not real!" [caption id="attachment_17156" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Collage by Erich Vieth (using some of his own comic books)"][/caption] I don't recall having a what-if conversation about fictional characters or fictional items at any time since that incident. I think that sealed how silly the whole idea was to me. A cynic was born that is trying to come out again as I creep toward curmudgeon age. I'll try to beat him back with a stick. Or set phasers on stun. [To be fair to the attorneys, from the NPR article]:
But is there any practical side to this? Yes, says Daily. The blog lets them "educate people about the law." And, adds Davidson, they can use "rich, detailed stories" when doing it.

Continue ReadingThe law and … comic books?

In Whom I Don’t Trust

Would you believe that the U.S. House of Representatives is spending our time voting on a resolution to reaffirm the divisive McCartheism era phrase "In God We Trust" as our national motto, and to encourage its display in all public and government buildings? Yep. On March 17, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee approved House Concurrent Resolution 13 and now the Republican controlled House will vote on it. You can read the entire text of the resolution here, and use the form at this link to contact your representative in the House, and urge them not to vote for such nonsense. How does this shore up the promise of jobs? I've previously posted on this annoying phrase, specifically on the money: In God We Trust (2007) and The Dollar Got More Annoying (2010)

Continue ReadingIn Whom I Don’t Trust

About the rampant spying in the U.S.

From Electronic Frontier Foundation:

EFF has obtained whistleblower evidence [PDF] from former AT&T technician Mark Klein showing that AT&T is cooperating with the illegal surveillance. The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails, web browsing, and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers, and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one expert observed, “this isn’t a wiretap, it’s a country-tap.”

What is EFF?
From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990 — well before the Internet was on most people's radar — and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights. Blending the expertise of lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists, EFF achieves significant victories on behalf of consumers and the general public. EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the US government or large corporations.
EFF offers this FAQ regarding its suit against AT&T.

Continue ReadingAbout the rampant spying in the U.S.

Daniel Dennett discusses closeted atheist preachers

Philosopher Daniel Dennett discusses closeted atheist preachers in this excellent one-hour video in which he undertakes a "reverse engineering of religion." At about the 20-minute mark Dennett focuses on the works of Bart Ehrman and Jack Good (The Dishonest Church). Dennett points out that Good is outraged by the conspiracy by preachers to keep accurate information from the laity, who "can't handle" the information. Per Dennett, seminarians work hard to devise clever ways to avoid divulging the full truth about the Bible. (minute 24). How did it come to this? Dennett addresses this at minute 25. Dennett quotes Donald Hebb: "If it's not worth doing, then it's not worth doing well." He focuses the question to this: Who needs theologians? His answer: Those preachers who want to avoid being candid with their parishioners. "Theologians are religions' spinmeisters." At minute 29, Dennett recites the "Canons of Good Spin." Two examples: "It has to relieve skepticism without arousing curiosity" and "It should seem profound." These principles can be summed up with Dennett's neologism "deepities." (minute 31). These are statements that seem to be true only because they are ill-formed, and they have two readings. One is true but trivial, and the other is false but would be earth-shaking if true. Examples are given up through the remainder of the video, including a Karen Armstrong assertion at minute 43. Theologians are like magicians, and the concept of "deepities" allows one to see the card up the magician's sleeve. More on Karen Armstrong's evasions at minute 45, including attacks on theologians who, cornered, suggest that existence is not an important attribute of "God." Dennett racks it all up to a belief-in-God-meme. These evasions of theologians are reasons without reasoners. They are the result of unreasoning processes. The "cunning" is in the institutions themselves. These sorts of pseudo-explanations result from "a conspiracy without a mastermind."

Continue ReadingDaniel Dennett discusses closeted atheist preachers