Intellectual Property and Fair Compensation

The author of a recent ARS Technica article entitled "Content Owners Need To Calm Down," some anonymous writer calling themselves "Free Audio Books" argues that content developers (writers, etc.) shouldn't get so worked up over others using their work without permission. To underscore their opinion, the author quoted copyright expert William Patry's concluding statement from a book onthe subject of intellectual property rights: “I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.”

Unfortunately for this person's argument, the copyright debate isn't about the creative process that produces original works; it is about fair compensation for the creation of a product. No one disputes the right for a farmer, for example, to be paid for the food they produce. If hordes of people simply drove up and grabbed as much corn or strawberries as they could carry and drove off to use them or sell them for a profit, they could be arrested (and rightly so) for theft. No one would sympathize with the thief; after all, they were trying to use the fruit of someone else's labor for their own purposes.

How does this differ from the unauthorized use of a writer's work? A product is a product, whether it is tangible or not. At the very least, laws governing ownership and commerce should be applied equally to all labor. Just because an idea doesn't take material form doesn't mean that it should receive lesser protections.

"But what can I do?"

Why do people continue to insist on lamenting how horrible the world has become? Were things really that much better 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago? Take it from an American of African descent, "the past" does not equal "a better time".

And on the subject horrible things in the world, I'm also pretty tired of the question "but what can we do about it?" Why do people even ask that question? Is it meant to be rhetorical? People ask this all the time, as if it's a mantra meant to absolve them of any guilt for having sat on their asses and never making any attempt to do something about the horror in the world. People, don't worry about how grand your actions are, just DO SOMETHING. No one said we have to be omnipotent in order to affect change. Do you really think you have to be able to throw lightening bolts or walk on water to have the power to affect someone's life? Do you really think it requires extraordinary circumstances in order to have an opportunity to make a difference?

Let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a skyscraper? Who in their right mind would believe one person could build something like that. Now think about how things like that actually get built. Welders, cement workers, electricians, and a multitude of other professionals show up and simply do the one thing they're good at. They contribute their unique skills, at a specific point in time, in specific areas. Over time, with each of them doing their part, a vacant patch of land becomes home to an immense structure.

Put another way, this is how all change in our history has come about. Everyone points to historical figures as "great men" with the ability to shape the world. These people are simply architects who applied established standards in unique ways. It was the small actions of the average person that constitute the change those "great men" are credited with.

Anyone who has ever had an idea as to what can be done to eliminate horrors such as those I posted from happening could be the next Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi or Mother Theresa. The difference between them and the average person? The number of people willing to actually DO what needs to be done, versus the number of people who simply throw up their hands, overwhelmed at the prospect of doing more than simply talking about how horrible the world can be.

High tech, low brow

I've recently watched as people have discussed the relative merits of video games that place their emphasis on shooting things or blowing them up. These games, commonly referred to as "shooters" are touted or panned, depending upon how original they are, with their proponents forever looking to avoid games that become "formulaic," copying the successful elements of past games.

With apologies to fans of this genre of video game, ALL shooters are formulaic. Enemy. Weapons. Terrain. All with a vaguely story-like framework to hold it together. Once you've played one, you've played them ALL. And no, I do not differentiate between, say HALO and Call of Duty. In the context of the broad potential games have in this era of technology, that would simply be splitting hairs, not comparing separate experiences.

But this is not what disappoints me about video games.

One source of irritation for me is the fact that video games are one of the last bastions of misogyny, gleefully flashing the same tired, juvenile, knuckle-dragging mentality that causes every comic book heroine to look like they just stepped out of the Playboy Mansion.

Game designers remind me of fashion designers: all women are essentially the representation of the early-developing girls these guys pined over when they first hit puberty: leggy, skinny, busty, with no hips. Either that, or they simply enjoy imagining 14-year-old boys with long hair and boobs. These are not realistic representations of women; they are simply a remnant of the pre-adolescent longings of geeks and horndogs.

In my life, I've seen one...ONE...game in which a woman was prominently featured and became a fully fleshed-out character rather than the product of a wet dream. For anyone with access to an X-Box, get the game Beyond Good & Evil. It was left in the dust because Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia were released at around the same time, but it remains every bit the equal of these games.

I mention this because, among other things, I am continually disgusted by the stereotypes I see constantly in video games. Like the Academy Awards, where the surest path to a nomination is to play a whore or an adulteress, women can't seem to appear in video games without being victims in need of rescue, ass-kicking men in the bodies of hot busty babes, side-kicks that serve as a moral compass for the player-hero, or some combination/permutation of those same, tired stereotypes.

This is one reason why even my extreme love for this entertainment genre hasn't sustained a fanatical interest in playing these games: the wondrous achievements in technology we all rave about and admire have yet to be equaled by comparable achievements in writing and characterization. Why do we get James Cameron-level technology to look at, but are still forced to suffer through Nickelodeon-level plots?

As of last year, the American video game industry surpassed the American movie industry in terms of revenue. Unfortunately, while motion pictures consistently manage to rise to the level of art, video games are still mired in the muck. I am not the only adult waiting for video games designed to push the boundaries of what is possible with story and interaction. If designers would only look beyond boobs, blood, and body counts, I might actually consider spending more money on games rather than cable, movies, or DVDs.

In the mean time, on the eve of the release of yet more sequels to such gore fests as God of War, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, and other mind-numbingly repetitive games, I'll take a pass and keep on walking. At least Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ends the pain after $8 and two hours of your time. Who needs to spend $300 on a game system and $50 on a title just to suffer through 20-30 hours of story even more shallow than that?

California courts uphold gay marriage ban

While this was an unexpected turn of events in many circles, this is exactly what I expected to see, but only because it was the logical conclusion to be reached based on the pertinent laws.

The California state constitution is written in a way that allows voter majority to create the kinds of idiosyncrasies that resulted in Proposition 8. The only thing a judge for their state court system can do is rule as to whether or not a law or statute adheres to the state constitution. Prop 8 was an amendment to California's state constitution, which means that the moment it went into effect, it became it's own exception to rules governing discrimination in that state.

Of course, the important words in that statement are in that state. The U.S. constitution includes a Bill of Rights, as well as several amendments that have upheld the full rights of citizenship and insured that they apply to everyone, no matter their circumstances. Discrimination against any one identifiable group made up of American citizens is unconstitutional on many, many levels.

Which brings us back to the California court ruling. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly result in Proposition 8 being struck down as unconstitutional (Federal law trumps state law). This means that we are looking at the end of this little trickle of state legislatures here and there legalizing gay marriage. By striking down Proposition 8, the Supreme Court will make gay marriage legal in EVERY state. The Social Conservatives and the Mormons in California who fought to get Proposition 8 passed will be remembered as the people who finally made legal acceptance of gay marriage across the U.S. possible.

And good luck trying to amend the U.S. constitution. We're not talking about a simply public majority vote here; amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not work the same way. Not only would it take a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress t pull this off, it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Current polls only show a 50-50 split on this issue, not even close to what social conservatives would need to make their dogma the law of the land.

So let them enjoy today's little victory; it was only a skirmish. They're essentially cheering the lighting of a match that will last just long enough to allow them to see that their ship is sinking.

Inalienable rights and our social fabric

"...some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority."

- James Madison, 4th. U.S. President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have recently read several articles that seem to posit that there is no such thing as "inalienable rights", that people do not, by virtue of our society, gain any special protections other than those written into law. Based on this line of reasoning, there is no such thing as basic human rights.

The idea of inalienable rights, the basic rights all people are assumed to have by most rational people, is a construct designed to help maintain the fabric of our society. To say that they do not exist is to say that human beings are nothing more than animals. Yes, people can behave as animals do, living by the credo "might makes right", but they are also reasoned, artistic, philosophical beings capable of rational thought. As such, there is more at work in human society than base Darwinism. Humans can affect their own destinies; they are not slaves to chance.

And so it follows that human society is greater than the sum of its parts, not simply a herd comprised of a large group of animals. The inalienable rights implied by our social structure is simply, to use a Matrix reference: "the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation", a logical byproduct of that structure. To argue against this is to deny that any such structure exists, and to deny that society exists is a rank refusal to accept our own reality.

Higher Ground: the President drags the discussion on abortion out of the mud

Abortion continues to be a hot-button issue, especially these days with Social Conservatism on the decline (for now) and a big fight shaping up over the coming appointment of a new Supreme Court Associate Justice. It is against this backdrop that President Obama spoke at the graduation ceremony at one of the most prominent Catholic Universities in the United States.

As some of you may have heard, the President's visit to Notre Dame became a rallying point for the "pro-life" (read: "anti-choice") movement in recent months. Catholics in particular have denounced the visit, citing the President's support for the pro-choice (read: "don't tell me what to do") movement. Many had called for the University to withdraw its invitation to the president to speak, while others (such as Bishop John D'Arcy of the regional diocese) staged a variety of protest, such as round-the-clock prayer vigils, protests, letter-writing campaigns, and marches. The speech itself was interrupted by hecklers shouting at the President.

After all of that, you might be wondering where public discussion of this issue now stands in the US. After the President's speech, I would say that we may be looking at a more enlightened viewpoint and civil tone of discussion than has been the case in recent years. With his respectful tone and call for reconciliation among the various viewpoints, rather than separation from and the demonization of opposing opinions, the President met this issue head-on and managed to move our ability to address it forward.

Is the "Swine" Flu anti-hype worse than the hype?

I recently read yet another critique of the concern over the "Swine" Flu virus, this one by a Mr. Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, in which differences between our modern world and the world of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic are highlighted in an attempt to show us all how silly we were for being so gullible as to buy into what they claim is nothing more than overblown hype.

As many of you will agree, there has been no shortage of people willing to take advantage of the worry caused by this newest version of the H1N1 Influenza. As is the case with any emergency situation, there will always be those who seek to turn these events to their advantage. However, I believe Mr. Stephens misrepresented some details of the 1918 pandemic and in doing so, undermined a central supporting point in many overall argument against the concern shown by governments and the medical community over this new strain of the H1N1 Influenza virus.

One example from his article is the contention that modern advances in medicine and hygiene greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the chance that a deadly pandemic could occur. Unfortunately, he neglected to include an obvious fact: these advances have not stopped the influenza virus. As he mentions in the article, over 30,000 US citizens die every year as a result of Influenza, while many millions of Americans contract the virus. The Influenza virus mutates every year, necessitating the creation of new vaccines every year to combat the emergence of new strains. Contrary to his contention here, there is nothing modern science has developed that might work to keep the Influenza virus new to any given flu season from mutating into something even more deadly than the Spanish Flu of 1918 and spreading just as quickly and easily as the more common Influenza viruses.

Another example is his use of an article written by author and anthropologist Wendy Orent for the magazine New Republic. Mr. Stephens uses this article to support his point, citing Dr. Orent's conclusions that the unique circumstances of World War I, with large masses of troops living together in squalid conditions, was some sort of “disease factory” that was perfect for the development of the Spanish Flu. He does not, however, note that this is not the prevailing view of the timeline for the appearance, mutation, and impact of the Spanish Flu.

John Barry of the Center for Bioenvironmental Research of Tulane and Xavier Universities published an article in a 2004 issue of the Journal of Translational Medicine in which he cites several well-supported studies that place the origin of the Spanish Flu in the United States, far away from the “disease factory” Dr. Orent claims as the source for the pandemic. The mutation of the virus as it made its way toward Europe from the United States into the deadlier strain that decimated populations there was the result of the nature of the virus, not living conditions in the theatre of war.

My concern at this point is the speed with which people have begun to dismiss the idea that the so-called “Swine” Flu could be dangerous. While the impact was low in March of 1918, it took only six months for the virus to mutate and explode into the virulent strain that killed half a million people in the United States and 20-30 million worldwide. The milder version of the Spanish Flu that struck the middle United States behaved in much the same way as our modern-day H1N1 Influenza virus: fast-spreading infection, with relatively few deaths. While this virus may not mutate into the kind of killer Spanish Flu was, it is premature to assume that it will not.

The troubling part of this new virus involves the circumstances of the relatively few deaths observed to date. The Spanish Flu of 1918 was marked by deaths that resulted from cytokine storms, or fatal immune system responses to the virus, a reaction that occurs primarily in those with strong, healthy immune systems. This has also occurred at this time in Mexico, where most victims do not fit the common flu victim profile (elderly/immune compromised/very young). Mortality resulting from these circumstances do not occur with the common influenza viruses.

The hype that is a side-effect of our modern 24-hour news cycle may be inescapable, but this does not automatically define the subject of the hype as unworthy of concern. Heap scorn and contempt on those who would engage in unwarranted fear-mongering, but please consider the reasoning behind the precautions recommended by scientist and other experts who have staked their careers and reputations on making sure we all do what is necessary to avoid a repeat of the horror the world experienced in 1918.

American Supreme Court Idol

Back during the election, one of the big issues that received only minor attention was the fact that so many of the Supreme Court justices were getting really, really old. There was rampant speculation that the person who won the race for President during the 2008 election cycle would have the chance to hand-pick up to three Supreme Court justices during their term. Many Religious Conservatives saw this as a means of overturning the Roe Vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the US, if only they could get a republican elected. Many Social Liberals saw this as a chance to shore up what they saw as eroding Constitutional freedoms and extend Constitutional protections, whether explicit (spelled out) or implicit (assumed rights extrapolated by the courts to cover holes in the fabric of Constitutional freedoms), if only they could get a Liberal elected.

In the end, the Liberals got their man. The question now is: what happens next? Conservatives have railed against "Activist Judges" whom they accuse of abusing the power of the courts to create law as they see fit, without regard for the letter of the Constitution, while Liberals have lamented what they see as the gradual destruction of the rights of the individual citizen (see: The Patriot Act). Each side wants to see someone who shares their Constitutional views picked to replace the next retiring judge, and both will fight tooth and nail to see that they get what they want.

Remember folks: these are lifetime appointments. While some Justices do indeed choose to retire, many serve until they drop dead. This means that a Justice who opposes the views of one party or the other becomes a serious threat to the ability of a President or legislative body to erect those views into legal precedent.

So grab a drink, sit back, and get ready to see some fireworks during the course of the selection and confirmation process to replace Justice David Souter.


- V.

What is the cure?

I've begun to read editorials and opinions from people who wait for things like pandemics, hoping that this will be the one to return balance to the planet. Their perspective is one of equilibrium; they feel that human activity has thrown the natural balance off and that every one and everything would be much better off if only there were fewer people in the world.

That sentiment brings to mind that scene in The Matrix where Agent Smith is interrogating Morpheus:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we...are the cure.

I'm not so sure the sheer number of people on this planet by itself is the primary issue. I believe that we simply need to rediscover how to achieve balance in our daily lives and in our approach to the world around us. The "equilibrium" Agent Smith spoke of is merely living in harmony with our environment, something that should be a basis for our society. But rather than a guiding principle, this idea is merely one spoke in a cycle in which balance is discovered, taken for granted, then thrown out the window in the pursuit of a short cut to happiness.

Working to achieve that balance, that harmony with the natural and social environments we are surrounded by, would eliminate mot of the problems many people believe a "culling" would solve.

Totalitarianism (American style)

Tell me folks: how does the traditional definition of Totalitarianism differ from Consumerism?

from Wikipedia:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of:

• An official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media
  
• A single party that controls the state
  
• Personality cults
  
• Control over the economy
  
• Regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism
  
• The use of mass surveillance
  Widespread use of state terrorism

Consumerism refers to economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate the economic structure of a society. (cf. Producerism, especially in the British sense of the term)

In modern America, economic ideologies have been substituted for the overtly political ideologies to produce a kind of neo-Totalitarianism.

Don't believe it?

• An official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media - In America, we call this "advertising" disseminated through privately held mass media
  
• A single party that controls the state - In America, we call this "Big Business" controlling the economy
  
• Personality cults - In America, we call these "Brands" used by lifestyle marketing as a means of meeting the artificially created interests, needs, desires, and values of the consumer population
  
• Control over the economy - In America, this falls under the realm of our financial institutions. Our recent bubble economy was driven by the business and consumer credit controlled by various financial entities
  
• Regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism - In America, we call this the "chilling effect"
  
• The use of mass surveillance - In America, we call this "Market Research"
  
• Widespread use of state terrorism - In America, this last piece of the Totalitarian puzzle is supplied by the culture of fear necessary to sustain economic bubbles. The artificial desires created through lifestyle marketing have at their core the individual need for identity and the fear generated by the gap between perception and reality.

Just as our foreign policy under the last administration was based on fear of the "other", lifestyle marketing exploits the need most people have to pursue the vision of who they would like to be, while distancing themselves from who they feel they are not. In a Consumerist Totalitarian system, who needs religious or political dogma? When you can sell an illusion for a fraction of the cost of the reality, you've struck gold.


- V.

"Gay marriage answer cost me the Miss USA crown"

This controversy brings to light a common response by bigots who insist on publicly expressing themselves.

Time and again, I hear racists, homophobes, misogynists, and other bigots defend ignorant statements like the one uttered by Miss California as their "God-given right to free speech" (that right is outlined in the Constitution, not the Bible, but that's neither here nor there). They climb up on a high horse and proclaim that to object to their bile is to restrict their freedoms and violate their rights.

I call bullshit.

The Constitution does not automatically grant unlimited freedom of speech. There are restrictions built into it related to the violations of the rights of others, as well as protections in the Constitution for the rights of all citizens. That document represents not only a guarantee of freedoms, but a balance of freedoms that keeps the exercise of one freedom by a group or individual from infringing upon the freedom of another group or individual. This balance is highlighted by the restriction on the "majority rules" aspect of the Constitution: the line in the sand to this concept is drawn right at the point at which the majority would deprive anyone of the same constitutional rights they themselves enjoy.

According to the The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"...All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

Marriage is one of those concepts that span both religion and government. If a religion wants the government to recognize their concept of marriage, it can only do so if the government recognizes every religion's (and non-religion's) concept of marriage. We are not a Christian nation; we a majority Christian nation. And while majority rules, it does not rule absolutely. The beliefs of Christians has had a large impact on the development of our society, but that particular system of belief is not the law of the land. If we are to hold true to the foundation this country was built on, we need to resist turning a secular government created to protect the freedoms of ALL citizens into a theocracy bent on forcing every citizen of this country to live according to the narrow views of a single system of belief.

This isn't a matter of faith, folks; it's a matter of Constitutional law. In this country, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you cannot force others to live by those beliefs.


- V.

"Why you sag them jeans, boy?"

Once again, I've been confronted with yet another article that tries to address that scourge of older sensabilities: the style of wearing slightly over-sized pants below one's waistline in a way that exposes more of the torso than is considered acceptable by mainstream culture. The article in question uses historical examples to paint this style as representative of many things that are "wrong" with our society, even going so far as to say that this style only aids those who would destroy African American culture.

*Yawn*

Really? We're going to assign THIS much power to a clothing style? As a student of history, I could cite literally dozens of examples of older people pointing at youth culture and lamenting how it is representative of the general decline of society, a recycling of past undesirable cultural influences, or an affront to authority, examples that range from Flappers in the 1920s to Hippies in the 1960s, with their unique hair and fashion rebellions. However, my favorite example comes in the form of a quote that puts this kind of generational culture clash into its proper context:

"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers."

- Socrates


Yes, THAT Socrates. This quote is literally THOUSANDS of years old. It is a lament that continues to echo uselessly throughout the ages. The young will always try new and different things, especially if those things piss off their elders. How sagging your pants somehow represents an imminent cultural threat, when hundreds of other styles in our nation's history have failed to destroy our way of life, is beyond me.

Now, don't get me wrong; I fully recognize the context some people are pointing to when they rail against this particular fashion statement. I would like to point out, however, that those who gravitate towards this style do not do so using that same context. One parallel example is the wearing of earrings by men. A practice not uncommon in other cultures or in our own past, it became stigmatized as a mark of homosexuality by the middle 20th century. Yet here we are in the new century and I'd be willing to bet most of the men reading this have at least one earring in right now. Does this make us gay because part of Western culture defined this fashion as such at some point? I submit that pants being sagged by prison sweetmeat, or any of the other definitions assigned to that style, do not define that fashion for today's youth culture.

As we get older, we all put aside childish things (exceptions not withstanding). History shows just how harmless even the ugliest, most shocking fashion statements really are. I say let them have their fun and grow out of it in their own time; there are more substantive issues we can focus our energy on.

Illusionary wealth as cultural status

It is a common fallacy that turning our society away from materialism is easier said than done. There are, however, many societies in which material wealth was seen as simply a means of pursuing spiritual and cultural wealth, rather than an end in and of itself. The ancient Athenian Greeks, for example, did not use their wealth to pursue the creation and expansion of an empire (the Delian League was an alliance of defense against the Persians, not an Athenian empire); they used it in pursuit of cultural and artistic achievement.

I think the trick would be to modify the cultural definitions of wealth. Current concepts of wealth are tied into consumerism. One of the primary factors in the current economic crisis is the belief by the average consumer that credit equals wealth; the capacity to use credit to acquire material goods, in many minds equals the ability to truly purchase and own. The illusionary "wealth" of credit, and the acquisition of the trappings of wealth, has become more important than what true wealth is supposed to do: decrease the struggle to survive and freeing the mind to pursue goals not directly related to day-to-day survival by increasing leisure time.

Without strong personal and social ties, the only means of acquiring cultural status in through the pursuit of those things that have become representative of cultural status. Rather than a reputation serving this purpose, the artificial and culturally accepted proxy reputation bestowed by consumer brands imparts that status.

Our leaders believe that increasing consumer spending is the key to solving the current economic crisis. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The over-reliance on credit got us into this mess. Shifting consumer spending from the credit-based acquisition of status items to cash-based expenditures on staple goods will not only correct current detrimental spending habits, but shift the acquisition of status away from symbols and towards interpersonal relationships, social relationships, and other non-materialistic, culture-strengthening pursuits.


- V.

Early spring, or staring at the decomposing corpse of last year

Ah, spring. It sucks, doesn't it? All through the long winter, snow-loving people like myself have had to suffer through the incessant whining of people who are just "dying for spring to arrive."

And then it does. Beautiful, isn't it? The snow melts to reveal a slimy, ragged carpet of rotted vegetation. Sprinkled about are the decomposing corpses of raccoons, mice, cats, and any other tragedy - great or small - that had lain hidden under the snow disappeared. The ground thaws in layers microns thick, turning every sojourn off the paved path into a mud-splattered slog through half-frozen slop. Tired at looking around at the mess winter has left of the world, you look up into trees that have yet to reacquire their leaves, or even any buds. Nothing comforting there; they all look like half-buried skeletons, twisted by disease or some unknown agony.

So, are you happy now? Spring is here and it stinks - literally. Musty, rotted and moldy as always.

Face it, you warm-weather worshipers; the "spring" you claim to love with such intensity is only a small part of the bargain. You conveniently forget the repulsive post-winter reality of spring in favor of the halcyon pre-summer illusion. Autumn,by contrast, is worthy of your fawning; it is a separate season with a unique an desirable flavor. Plus, you have the pristine solitude of winter to look forward to. Spring? By the time you can look around and enjoy the warmer weather, it's very nearly the official start of summer.

One good barometer of when that small sliver of livable spring appears is the arrival of the cherry blossoms. In Sapporo, Japan, a city with a climate almost identical to that of Chicago, Illinois, the peak of the cherry blossom bloom is the second week of May. That's right; May. The spring you pine for, the spring all the poets write about, the spring that is so representative of life, is only a few weeks ahead of the summer solstice.

So play it up all you want, spring worshipers, but know this: your "season" is only a short prelude to summer, barely discernable from it. I'll welcome summer with you but please, put away the fanfare for the arrival of "spring"; Some of us still have not had time to properly mourn the passing of winter and the end of the snow.


- V.

Inaugural Post

Even with decades of computer experience, writing a web log is something I have resisted. Sure, I've been known to haunt various forums and post my thoughts and opinions, but having a central location on the web where I keep those opinions never held much of an attraction for me.

So what changed?

There was no sudden epiphany, no seminal event that suddenly drove me to create a blog. This is simply another in a string of changes that have taken place along my long, slow climb out of the desert of the quantified, where the only reality was that of the tangible, and into the realm of the qualified, where the only limits were those of the imagination.

I discovered years ago that I had unwittingly sacrificed the creativity and free thinking that was such a part of who I had always been, all in the name of chasing an interest rather than a passion. This blog, among other initiatives and projects, is not simply meant to rectify that sad set of circumstances, but to serve as one of many sign posts and points of interests along the path I have now chosen to travel.

If you are interested in what that path will look like, and what I might see along the way, then you are more than welcome to stop back and see what there is to see.


- V.


ps

Some among you might be asking yourselves, "What the hell is a pharmakos?"

from Wikipedia:

• In Ancient Greek religion, a pharmokos was a kind of human scapegoat (a slave, a cripple or a criminal) who was chosen and expelled from the community at times of disaster (famine, invasion or plague) or at times of calendrical crisis, when purification was needed.

A pharmakos was nothing more than another kind of "folk devil, or a person or group of people who are portrayed in history and in popular culture as outsiders and deviants.They are typically the focus when mainstream society looks for someone to blame for crime and other kinds of social problems.

If you spend enough time on the fringes of culture and society, you begin to see value in the points of view you encounter from the outsiders and the deviants. In this blog, I hope present a point of view that encompasses observations that go beyond the obvious and the mainstream.