Thursday, May 30, 2013
As someone who is "different", I know I have to "step up" to meet real needs, sometimes, regardless of my "choices"
I noticed today that the introduction to my first “Do
Ask Do Tell” book had been titled “You Didn’t Ask, but I’ll Tell Anyway”. And one particularly critical reviewer on
Amazon noted that I didn’t give her a reason to “care” about my views, on anything.
Actually, I thought that the first chapter, giving the chronicle of my William and Mary “expulsion”
in 1961 and setting up my stake in the debate three-plus decades later on “gays
in the military”, imputed a reason to care.
The reviewer didn’t mention that incident in her discussion of the book,
yet it’s the most critical of all.
But, in “retirement”, fifteen years later, it’s a
fair question that I get. Why do I keep “speaking”,
regardless of the lack of financial compensation and perhaps declining audience
numbers (so much competition with newer social media) . Why don’t I join up in groups so I can “help
people” more directly? Why won’t I
embrace some of the other compelling specific causes of others – when, as one
can see from the media every day, there is so much “need”?
It’s a bit of a course reversal. In the past, if I had presented myself into
various personal situations, I would have had to fit into someone else’s
bureaucracy (still true) and run the risk of being seen as “butting in” when
not personally welcome. You have to
develop your own voice first before you have something to offer others,
right? Yet, I get these entreaties, some
of them coming with veiled threats. Free
entry may not be around forever.
I did have my own talents, even as a kid (starting
with music). But you kept coming after
me, to learn to take care of other people, even physically and taking risks,
first. Over time, that morphed into “demands”
that I enter the world of emotional complementarity with other people. When I did not comply as much as "you" wanted, you sometimes called me a coward or mooch, words not used much today like they were a half-century ago.
This was not a matter of being responsible for the
consequences of choices. These were
pre-existing conditions of socialization.
To not fulfill them would leave the physical risk taking to others, and
disrupt (at least by distraction) the complementarity that sustaining families
requires.
But what I think is important is that “you” (that
is, everyone who interacted with me over the years this way) be able to
articulate what you really want and need, without leading yourself into
contradictions. And I think that the
progressive part of the social and political spectrum, which might see “your”
behavior as bullying or a bid for social control and superiority, should listen
to what you say.
I think “your” idea is something like this: People have to “step up” to challenges,
related to the real needs of others around them, often in circumstances that
they don’t get to choose. (A
particularly striking example in my own life concerned the Vietnam era military
draft, countered by deferments.) “You”
believe that navigating this test satisfactorily tends to lead one into stable,
permanent relationships that express emotional complementarity or “polarity” –
usually tradition marriage with children, and responsibility for other
generations, in both directions. In
time, the unchosen challenges become more about emotion and domestic needs, and
less about external threats – for example, the increased need for eldercare
with longer life spans (when people have fewer children).
At some point, my reaction to all this, as it played
out with considerable irony in my own life, suggests principles – moral or ethical,
social, political, and maybe legal – that would apply to a lot more people than
just me. Call it a use of “inductive
reasoning”. It becomes a systematic
examination of the question as to how people who are “different” should behave
and deploy themselves. People like
me. Oh, I know, we are all “different”
in some way.
But the basic reason that this “matters” to “all of
us” is renewed concerns about sustainability of freedom, from all kinds of
influences (climate change, and terrorism driven in part by indignation).
I’ve always viewed the questions around “dangerous
difference” through a moral lens. That’s
how things were seen as I grew up in the 1950s.
The idea mandatory sharing of
sacrifice was very real then. In more
recent years, as appreciation of
diversity has grown, there has developed more interest in learning the science
of “disability”, which often masks hidden gifts that add to diversity.
I don’t have a clear medical explanation for
my own physical difficulties, which kept me from physical competitiveness,
learning to swim, and making normal social competition a source of shame –
meaning I needed an alternate path in life – which in my case worked, but which
could be taken away if I have to fight other people’s battles. Was my problem a kind of mild autism or
Asperger’s? Maybe. Could it be circulatory? Possibly. Motivational and attitudinal? At some point in my later life I should do a
full medical workup to find out.
I certainly see that recalcitrance in going along
with the need for interdependence, forgiveness and acceptance of attention from
others when really needed, can put others in jeopardy, too.
I’d like to summarize the progression in the “direction”
of my thinking since my first book.
The 1997 book started with an effort to anchor basic
fundamental rights to “private choice” for “homosexuals” (whether the term
refers to immutable traits or deliberate desires). It focused on “due process” rights,
protecting people with certain patterns of adult intimate interest from
government (or systematic societal) intrusion.
Quickly. I saw how protecting these rights correlated to anchoring
fundamental rights of individuals in all kinds of context s (particularly self-expression, self-defense,
and faith or its lack thereof). The ideological underpinning for policy direction would be an almost fanatical dedication to the idea of "personal responsibility", regardless of mitigating or immutable circumstances.
There used to be, a few decades ago. a cloudy
perception that “homosexuals” might
undermine the reproductive future and emotional solidarity of a community, even
though (ironically), “they” didn’t directly threaten specific marriages in the
usual sense. (The detraction seemed to
be a more dangerous threat them.)
So
police raids and the various tactics of McCarthyism were seen as making “examples”
of nonconformists based on presumptive (but not direct) evidence of supposed
wrongdoing. (We saw that thinking with
the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.) So
the basic personal rights of “homosexuals” needed to be protected. At the same time, the practical problems that
“traditional” families faced in an increasingly permissive and individually
competitive culture need to be faced.
These were posited in terms of the economic aspects of most “family”
issues. For example, “inequality” in wages benefits and taxes or even
partnership (marriage) rights of “single” people (loosely equated to the
childless) needed to be balanced against increased disposable income.
After 9/11, and the evolution of many issues during the
past decade (including the way social media is interpreted) and my own prolonged experience with
eldercare (which I could not “choose”), my view of the whole process went into
retrograde, rather like a palindrome. The
basic moral conflicts came between the need for the individual to be and
express himself, compared to a valid need for society to have people submit
their egos to the common interest sometimes (often posed in religious terms,
like Allah). This conflict seemed to co-exist with an increasing need to treat
people as equally as possible in public policy with regard to any
characteristics (Biology class!) that seemed largely immutable and beyo0nd the
purview of choice (sexual orientation).
But the biggest concerns go deeper than econo,ic parity, derived from
equal protection, which had followed behind due process (for example, Sandra Day
O’Connor on Lawrence v. Texas). This
dichotomy had morphed, away from economics, to following a map of the human
heart.
Labels:
personal ethics,
radical hospitality,
screed-book
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Making your digital infrastructure robust against catastrophes
Can someone who works solo on literary, music or
film content realistically protect his content from destruction in disaster? The question obviously recurs, now given last
weeks super-tornadoes in Oklahoma.
The most obvious protection is to back up your stuff
in the Cloud, whether with Carbonite, Applie’s ICloud, or Mozy. Check that you
can retrieve it, keep your credit cards updates, and passwords secure (we haven’t
heard much about clouds being hacked, but out there could exist hackers or
enemies mean enough to do so). I’ve had
trouble accessing Carbonite from a different and new machine (so I usually
reload from thumbdrives). Now cloud
backups are periodic; generally, any one item can be backed up only once every
24 hours.
Of course, Cloud backup reliability might be tested
with a really big national disaster, like a powergrid, EMP, or cyberattack.
So the next question is, how to secure your stuff
physically, besides relying on the Cloud? One consideration is that after a
disaster your home could be condemned and authorities might not let you fetch
your data and gear, which might have survived and be usable.
One obvious solution is to keep some data in
separate locations, most preferably in a safe-deposit box in a bank. But even small bank buildings could be
destroyed by supertornadoes or coastal hurricanes.
You might want a safe deposit location to be some
distance from your home, and particularly not immediately northeast of your
home (a tornado’s path).
If you have a basement, you might want to keep some
of your flash or CD backups downstairs, and at least one or two laptops (with
hard drives reasonably current) downstairs.
If you live in Texas or Oklahoma, you might want to consider investing
in a storm cellar and keeping some stuff there.
The same goes for keeping paper copies of valuable records.
A tornado can pop suddenly, and it’s possible that
there might be only a few minutes warning.
If you live in a hurricane or flood prone area, or a
wildfire exposed area, you might want to consider having arrangements in
advance of a hotel to go to, with portable gear, out of range. Sometimes wildfires give little
warning., Mudslides (as in California)
seem to give no warning (although an unusuall winter rain can be a
prelude). Sinkholes (most of all in
Florida) give no warning, and seem to defeat the storm cellar backup idea.
And massive earthquakes, which come without warning,
most likely in western states, can defeat the storm shelter strategy. Midwestern earthquakes, based on the New
Madrid fault, could be as devastating, particularly to homes not build with
earthquake codes, but occur in severity much less frequently (probably only
every several hundred years).
An unusual calamity could be a tsunami, with hours
of warning, perhaps from across an ocean.
An underwater landslide from the Cumbre Vieja volcano in the Canary
Islands might be capable of generating a tsunami a hundred feet or more high
along the US East Coast, reaching across the entire coastal plain.
Business owners should consider making optical (CD
or DVD) as well as flash and cloud backups.
Some authorities say that an electromagnetic pulse, even a localized one
from a flux device, can disable and destroy magnetic data devices as well as
the power grid, but there is disagreement on that. Solar storms are very unlikely to damage home
electronics.
I think a lot of attention could be placed on steel construction, which can make homes resistant to tornaodes even up to EF4.
An interesting moral or ethical question would be, how prepared should homeowners be to house others, even from distant communities. (After Hurricane Katrina, many were housed in Texas, and some came as far north as the DC area.)
So, taking care of yourself – and your data – can be a real tall order.
An interesting moral or ethical question would be, how prepared should homeowners be to house others, even from distant communities. (After Hurricane Katrina, many were housed in Texas, and some came as far north as the DC area.)
So, taking care of yourself – and your data – can be a real tall order.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Making a stronger case for planning the "digital afterlife"; I update my own Account Manager
I have recently updated my own Google account to
provide direction as to what should happen should it suddenly become
inactive. I will be patching together
directions for my other accounts soon (AOL,. Verio for “doaskdotell.com”,
Facebook, Twitter. Etc).
The Account manager, in my case, required 2-step
verification, and for me to provide an e-mail address of the preferred contact
(the “afterlife” trustee in case of my
own death) with an automated message. A
warning is sent when the account has been inactive for two months.
There are reasons why an account could become
relatively inactive even during life.
These could include hospital stays (hospitals are notoriously paranoid
about allowing patients to have electronics in the rooms – they ought to
provide Internet access that you can pay for, just like phone), long term jury duty (if unlucky enough to get
on a controversial trial requiring sequestering), overseas travel (especially
to non-western countries), new employment requiring travel or even some kinds
of volunteerism.. Another possibility is disaster recovery, especially if there
is widespread damage to infrastructure (especially communications) in a
geographical area. That could occur
because of terrorism.
Paul Sullivan has an important essay on this matter
in his “Wealth Matters” column called “Leaving Behind the Digital Keys to
Financial Lives”, p. B7 of Saturday Business Day, the New York Times, link here .
Practices that seem necessary for security – such as
different passwords for different accounts – can confound lives for others
after one is gone or is incapacitated.
One fact that has always impressed me is that
service providers aren’t more squeamish about the idea that people can
self-publish and broadcast and then not be held accountable if they disappear
and no one else can answer for them.
Perhaps that’s part of the Section 230 and DMCA Safe Harbor world. If you think about it, you can see how the “Whitelisting”
paradigm of newer social media could be leveraged to require more
pre-arrangement with others before publication.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
"Do ask, do tell": The press needs to "ask" when pursuing major national security stories (Washington Post)
The Washington Post, in an editorial this morning
(Saturday, May 25), went down my “Do Ask Do Tell” path, with a criticism of an
FBI probe of Fox news correspondent James Rosen. The piece is called “The freedom to ask: The
government went too far by calling a journalist a co-conspirator” in print; online,
it is “The press must have the ability to ask questions”. The link is here.
The government apparently claimed that Rosen was
prompting a leak source , Jin-Woo Kim, to disclose classified information, As a follow on, there does seem to be no
prosecution of the reporter likely. But the Post notes that Obama seems much
more aggressive about leaks, and even reporters who may prod them, that was
Bush.
The “obvious” question would be, what if an
independent blogger had probed someone for a “leak”? Could the legal ramifications be different?
In an asymmetric world, it is possible for bloggers
independent of the “established press” to stumble on possibly critical
information or major and novel threats
-- the “see something, say something” problem. I have actually spoken to authorities a few
times over the years about information passed to me, resulting in one telephone
conversation with the FBI in Philadelphia in 2005.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Anderson Cooper show again hits the Section 230 issue
Today, an Anderson Cooper daytime broadcast
re-iterated the Section 230 controversy. This time, there was a webmaster who
was hosting “revenge porn” where ex-lovers post risky pictures of women all
over the Internet.
There was a general feeling among the audience and
comments on the web that women brought this upon themselves by taking or
allowing to be taken some inappropriate pictures. If taken without their knowledge, that’s a
different matter.
Still, the webmaster was questioned about his moral
compass and why he would hide behind a legal technicality.
The link for the broadcast today is here.
I would challenge Anderson to host a daytime show
conversation about Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. He should invite people from both sides of
the issue: Electronic Frontier
Foundation, Google or Youtube and Facebook, perhaps me (I can shed light on it –
and I’m three hours away by Amtrak) , as well as advocates of protection of
children from cyverbullying (Parry Aftab), and some attorneys who can discuss
defamation and privacy (they are trick concepts, and can vary among
states). It's inevitable that there will be public confrontation over this issue some day.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Teens are more likely to whitelist social media information than in the past (Pew Study)
The Washington Times is reporting, in an article by
Annie Z. Lu Wednesday, that teenagers are becoming more savvy in not
oversharing on social media.
Teens are more likely to whitelist information they
post than before, and be pickier about who sees it.
The Washington Times story link is here. Teens are not too concerned about
advertisers who see their posts, but are more aware that schools or employers
could be concerned about what they post than they had been before. They are more likely to unfriend people or
block specific users (this can be done with regular websites with “htaaccess”
but is not common).
Teens who are actually successful in activities in
school (whether sports or drama, music, and the like) are more likely to
emphasize “real world” interactions and accomplishments, as these tend to
matter more to colleges anyway.
In one local Arlington VA church, teens use an annual “30
hour fast” time to make short films that could conceivably be entered into real
festivals.
The link for the Pew Study “Teens, Social Media, and
Privacy” by Marry Madden. Amanda Lenhard, Aaron Smith, and others is here.
In practice, it appears very common now for college
students to leave only basic profile information on Facebook open to everyone,
and to require approval for Twitter following.
It wasn’t common three years ago.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Lawyer advises laying low if a small-volume blog "defames" you
I saw an interesting “legal tip of the day” from
Lawline”,
regarding online defamation on a blog or perhaps social media, fro, 2009..
The attorney advises clients flamed (or legally
defamed) in low-traffic blogs to remain cool and probably do nothing.
Litigation would only be likely to draw more public attention to the content in
question. That observation would seem to
be true also with people with relatively lower numbers of social media “friends”
or “followers” or even “likes” (or dislikes).
Of course, there can be another side to this “online
reputation” question. Employers or other interested parties could still look
for the item and be influenced by it, even if it wasn’t relatively public.
The question might also occur with public photos of
a person posted on another person’s site or on a Facebook wall, or otherwise “tagged”. It sounds theoretical now, but facial
recognition software continues to progress.
This particular video didn't take up Section 230 issues.
Attorney Ronald Coleman also discusses invasion of privacy in a similar Lawline video. He discusses photographing homes from the air, and says that New York State (and most East Coast states) is not enthusiastic about protecting privacy compared to publication and speech, but California may be more interested in privacy issues, as is Europe/
Attorney Ronald Coleman also discusses invasion of privacy in a similar Lawline video. He discusses photographing homes from the air, and says that New York State (and most East Coast states) is not enthusiastic about protecting privacy compared to publication and speech, but California may be more interested in privacy issues, as is Europe/
Sunday, May 19, 2013
In the 50s world in which I grew up, moral thinking started with "paying your dues"
When I was growing up, it seemed that the most
important “moral issue” in the world was whether someone a bit “different” like
me would learn to perform “for others” according to gender, even when openness
to sacrifice was required and even when it meant giving up any edge in my own
abilities.
Everyone shared in common sacrifice. Everyone paid
his dues. All men shared in protecting
women and children for the survival of the community.
I was in that "transition zone", where I could draw
attention to myself in other ways and create a stir. So “re-educating” someone like me was seen as
essential to the community, even an national security issue for warding of
enemies. It was the “pawns ahead of
pieces” theory.
In a few of my drafts of novels, the “me” character
gets sent to an “academy” where he learns to “become a man”. In that sheltered environment,
he meets and interacts with one of his own “role models”. In the meantime, while he is there, something
catastrophic happens to the outside world to make it dystopian. Channeling the "different" individual was seen as essential to security and stability, as so illustrated by the draft in earlier times; now it is related to sustainability, calls for collective commitment, and recognition that the threat from "hidden" inequality of sacrifice can run very deep. The conscription of earlier times translates to an expectation that people "step up" in modern, freer times -- physically and emotionally. Our ideas of fairness -- and lasting relationships -- ultimately link back to this.
The moral theory of the mental health world of the
1950s was that gender conformity would lead to a growth process where permanent
marriage and family would happen, and where a healthful and appropriate
relationship with others outside family would develop. This was certainly a speculative theory at
best, and was pretty easy for those in power to abuse.
Yet, I tended, ironically, to develop the same
attitude about others that had been shown about me. I tended to see people as inherently “worthy”
or not, partly based on notions or appearance and performance associated with
gender. Since real relationships were
difficult, I tended to move into an area of fantasy.
The rub, of course, is that if someone has real
talents and is able to focus on them and deploy them publicly, especially in a
global world, he may wind up able to deal with other people in the world on is
own terms. That sounds healthy – to have
something to offer first (as in the area of music composition or writing). But it also depends on being “fortunate” and
depending on the hidden sacrifices of others.
In the latter part of my life, after retirement, I’ve
faced a different kind of “conscription”.
That is, in addition to the eldercare that I’ve chronicled, real calls
to become involved with the needs of others.
Now, I don’t like to be solicited and fight off sales calls . I can’t change course for what I’m doing,
even though I understand at a certain intellectual level that others have to
make a living, too – sometimes by selling things on commission, including to
me. I don’t like to be approached to
fight for other people’s causes.
There is something about doing something for other
people. When what I do comes out of my
own talents, I’m not very concerned with what :”I think of” the person I do it
for. That sounds healthy enough. But in real life, that often isn’t good
enough. So much in life does depend on “fortune”.
A lot of the calls for volunteerism
sound unfocused – a willingness to join teams, respond to emergencies, or
pledge “hours” as well as money, into bureaucracies controlled by others.
I heard a plea from NBC-Washington’s “Wednesday’s
Child” Sunday morning.. A young man was
presented who had unusual artistic talents.
I won’t even get in to the suspicion people could come up it I expressed
interest (in practice, it’s a by downer).
But adoption raises a question:
would I be willing to nurture talent in someone else rather than put so
much emphasis on deploying my own? I
used to hear about that kind of question even in adult relationships. (See TV blog entry on the NBC series Nov. 13,
2012; another ethical question would be expecting to be able to hand-pick a child for abilities. . A lifestyle that put's one's own accomplishments is certainly double-edged. But maybe, despite Rick Warren, sometimes " it is about you."
What, according to the old-style "morality" that I grew up with, was supposed to happen to those of us who really "couldn't" do the physical combative stuff? At lest, we were supposed to keep a low profile. Then there wouldn't be too much dissent from those even more disadvantaged? It seems like the 50s-style morality wanted to practice psychological and localized Marxism, with a veneer of economic freedom. (The "natural family" crowd sometimes says this outright.) What you didn't need that much of in a a socially structured environment with less diversified social opportunity was real compassion.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
A review of my time in Army Basic Combat Training (1968); I don't want to go "Back to the Bay"; the draft can still come back
As I’ve noted here before, I’m planning to issue a “formal”
commercial version of my “Do Ask Do Tell III” booklet (Books, Oct. 1,
2011). I’m seriously considering adding
to it, as an appendix, the original “Chapter 4” of my fiction manuscript,
titled “The Proles”, which I wrote by hand in 1969 while in the Army at Fort
Eustis, That chapter gives the
excruciating details of my experience in Basic Combat Training at Fort
Jackson, SC, from February 1968 through May 1968.
Yes, you can tell from the elapsed months, I did get
recycled. One of the lowest points in my
life occurred on Sunday, March 31, 1968, when on KP in Special Training
Company, when the cook made me scrub out the grease pit with a tooth
brush. That evening, LBJ would announce
that he would not run for re-election that year. And LBJ had escalated the war in Vietnam,
leading to 50000 GI deaths and 500,000 troops “over there” about the time I was
in.
In my 1997-2000 “Do Ask Do Tell: A Gay Conservative Lashes
Back” I did “summarize” my experience Basic.
(Author Peter Tauber had done the same with his 1973 book “The Sunshine
Soldiers”, and I spoke to him once by phone around that year.) The book make the language a little more
polite and tended ti stress the political and social significance of the
Vietnam era military draft in policy terms.
It mentioned a few things worth noting again. One is that the Army did check with NIH twice
about my security clearances, resulting in some bizarre communication where the
Army seemed to be passing the buck on my suitability to civilian “professionals”
in an area where the military usually wants its own judgment (as we remember from
the 1993 debate on gays in the military).
Another is a general observation that the military draft was seen as an
essential prong of national security, the way pawns are indispensable in a
chess game. Nuclear confrontation was
less likely if the US could deploy sufficient troops on the ground
anywhere. It reminds me of a certain
approach to chess, as in the “Queen Pawn” openings where the pawns are advanced
in front of the major pieces before the pieces come into contact. (Chapter 2 of the book also discusses my plot
for “The Proles”, which the reader can check online or in the book itself; I’ll
come back to that another time.)
But the fifty typewritten pages about Basic from my 1969
original (of “The Proles”) communicates a much more disturbing concept. The text is excruciating, as it details my difficulties
in adapting to what was demanded of me in military life. There could be serious consequences for me,
for the rest of my life, if I eventually did not do so. I could become a burden on others in the
unit. There is particular attention to
the idea that, if I finished Basic successfully in reasonable time, that I would be “sheltered away” in a safe position
(like a King in a chess game after castling) whereas others, with less education but more
street smarts, became the cannon fodder in Vietnam. There was even the spectacle of my Direct
Commission application, while I was in Special Training, and the bizarre
interview I had with a board of officers at the end of Basic, just a few weeks
after an equally bizarre conversation with a “mental hygiene professional”. It’s the stuff of independent film today.
There really wasn’t much sexual tension -- homosexuality itself was not a direct
issue in such a regimented world – but the
lack of social skills was. This was more like Asperger’s Syndrome in the
military, or even mild autism.
The “DADT I” book also relates my time in graduate school
before I entered the Army. In fact, to “redeem
myself”, I took the draft physical three times (in 1964, 1966, and 1967), going
from 4-F to 1-Y to 1-A. By 1966, in
fact, the draft physical had stopped “asking” about sexual orientation – a little
known fact, but logical in a world with a military draft. When in graduate school, I was also an
assistant instructor, with the “power” to give exams and grades (in that
dreaded algebra). I recall grading finals
on a bus (out to see a grad school friend in Colorado) and turning the grades
in (about half the grades were D’s and F’s) the day I would catch a plane home
from graduate school, about the enter the Army very shortly. I was passing judgment on others, in a way
that I would soon be subjected to myself.
That transition was ironic and curious.
Some will say that I “abuse” the power and was an a-hole. Perhaps I had comeuppance due.
After Basic, there was the stint in the Pentagon, and the
mysterious transfer to Fort Eustis. In
Chapter 5 of “The Proles” I relate history saying that the “sheltered MOS” (“01
E20” for those who remember_ were phased out, and some “sheltered” people with
more time left were sent to AIT and Vietnam combat after all.
The Selective Service System still exists (link) and young adult males are still required to
register.
Sometimes, since 9/11, there have been political calls to resume the draft, out of fairness and shared sacrifice. Charles Moskos took that position after 9.11, even as he backed away from his original support of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” which he had helped author in 1993. I actually talked to Selective Service and got documents from them when working on the first book in 1996.
Sometimes, since 9/11, there have been political calls to resume the draft, out of fairness and shared sacrifice. Charles Moskos took that position after 9.11, even as he backed away from his original support of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” which he had helped author in 1993. I actually talked to Selective Service and got documents from them when working on the first book in 1996.
But the real value of the “Basic Training” chapter is to
pose a certain moral question. That is,
what behavior and performance is expected of someone when an outside force compels
him to serve the needs of others, in a manner outside of his normal skillset and
function in a “free market” world? One
could use the word “cowardice” regarding my issues in Basic at times, even
though that word is no longer used that way today in polite company.
This was no small issue.
The rifle range did damage my hearing, at least on the right ear (the “coaching
side” on the Rifle Range), resulting in some sacrifice for someone who had
intended that music would be a big part of his life.
There’s another angle.
I was totally helpless for about six weeks, and then after about two
weeks in Special Training Co0mpany I suddenly got better, but not because of
unusual coercion from the cadre. I just
did. I passed the PCPT on the fourth try
with a score in the mid 300’s, and later made sharpshooter on the Rifle
Range. It was possible for me to perform
physically, more or less in accordance of my not-chosen biological gender, if
pushed hard enough. As a moral matter,
should I have been? The problem is that
if I didn’t step up, others would sacrifice in my place. That kind of tension can generate wars.
I have to account for the fact that I am rather clumsy with
a lot of mechanical, practical things. I
have a lot on my plate doing what I do, so I have to remain focused, and not
make “changes” that could break things.
(That sounds like “moves” in an IT workplace.) The brain has finite capacity, though it can
gradually increase.
I suppose I have a moral duty to find out why I was “behind”,
since it could lead to more sacrifice form others. In my world, as I grew up, “disability” was
perceived through a “moral lens”, and I tended to reflect that value as I
judged others in turn (as I already had in grad school as a math teacher). Based on modern neuroscience, it sounds like
some of the issue might have been premature “pruning” of brain circuits,
cutting off distractions so I could focus on what I would be good at. This may be a residual of some sort of epigenetic
autism.
One could apply this sort of analysis to any situation,
where someone has to function under someone else’s authority, survive, and yet
not jeopardize others. One could even
imagine this analogy with the Holocaust.
And I think we are “judged” by how we step up to these
individually tailored (maybe not so random) challenges, that seem to vary among
generations but have a tendency to be forgotten and then to come back. Even so, I remember my own questions about the public morality of the Vietnam war later, and getting a letter from my own church that we had to "trust our leaders". We know where that went. As a general matter, people can share moral culpability for what their countries do, too.
I can relate the experience to today’s calls about service
and volunteerism. I don’t like being “conscripted”
into serving someone else’s agenda, and I cringe when I see calls to pledge “hours”
as well as money to “other people’s causes”.
Service seems more valid when it is related to one’s own special skills,
and when the recipients have some specific connection to how one has already
lived one’s life. In these circumstances, I don’t get too concerned about judging the “worthiness” of others.
Yet, the ability to find satisfaction from connection to
others, without their having to be judged the way I think I have been
sometimes, still remains an issue for me.
I am left with another impression, though, of what happens
if we don’t take care of our infrastructure (May 13 posting). It comes right out of the Army, the military
mind. “The whole world will go Back to the
Bay”.
Wikipedia attribution link (p.d.) for modern picture of BCT at Fort Jackson (second image).
Labels:
personal ethics,
personal history,
screed-book
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Does the future use of social media portend an expectation of whitelisting?
One of the important concepts in the use of social
media is “whitelisting”, the idea that content is posted for the eyes of people
already “approved” as “friends” or “followers”, or, in the older Web 1.0
environment, recipients on a listserver.
Of course, digital communications are “permanent” and can be forwarded
to others in ways not controlled by the sender.
In practice, this has been a real problem for the “privacy” many people,
especially teenagers and young adults.
"Friend-specific" applications processing has gone quite far. I think it's a little creepy to want to check a seating chart for a concert against social media to see who might be sitting near you, but that's how far it has gotten.
"Friend-specific" applications processing has gone quite far. I think it's a little creepy to want to check a seating chart for a concert against social media to see who might be sitting near you, but that's how far it has gotten.
It sounds like there is a chicken-and-egg problem
here. Are “we” supposed to make our “friends”
in the real world (through work, church, volunteerism, socializing in bars,
courtship, and anything else) first, before we decide who should receive our
communications? That would seem to give a “purpose” to communicating material that
might seem provocative or a sign of recklessness or bad judgment if released
into the wild (as I found out with my substitute teaching fiasco in 2005, noted
here July 27, 2007). I can see how this
concept could become important in some quarters, for example perhaps homeowner’s
insurance, as well as the job market and exposure of other family members. (But oversharing with loosely screened "friends" of daily activity details leads to security and reputation problems, too.)
That’s not the spin, however, of the book “The New Digital Age” (mentioned in yesterday’s post). The early chapters suggest that people will evolve digital identities that parallel their “real” ones. Everyone will live a “Second Life”.
That’s not the spin, however, of the book “The New Digital Age” (mentioned in yesterday’s post). The early chapters suggest that people will evolve digital identities that parallel their “real” ones. Everyone will live a “Second Life”.
In fact, my self-publication, and leveraging of the
free and generous (perhaps gratuitous) search –engine indexing in the early
days of my web presence (the late 90s, when I put my first “Do Ask Do Tell”
book text online) helped me to find interesting people in the real world. It worked in the reverse of the way Facebook
is supposed to work now.
There are even deeper questions that follow: like
what “you” value in other people. When will meeting real needs first be
emotionally satisfying?
Labels:
implicit content,
self-publishing,
whitelisting
Monday, May 13, 2013
Our top priority right now: stability and security of the power grid: and it's a technical issue before it's a socia or politicall one
I’ll be reviewing a new book by Eric Schmidt and
Jared Cohen, “The New Digital Age”, and, yes, I can be swept away by the way
digital space is providing a new universe for our lives.
But I also think that there are a few issues we need
to focus on to make sure we sustain “life as we know it”. And a few of the issues seem to have more
substance and credibility than others.
One of the most critical is the stability and
security of the power grid. There are
reports from places that sound credible (the National Academy of Sciences, and
Oak Ridge National Laboratories, as well as right-wing columnists and
politicians, even Newt Gingrich) that major parts of our country could suffer
disruptions of shutdowns, with tragic results, for years form a terrorist
electromagnetic pulse strike (WMP), which could be deployed more locally in
smaller weapons. It’s not completely
clear to me that it is as easy for “amateurs” to make and deploy these devices
(like radio frequency and flux guns, which are all non-nuclear) as a few
pundits claim – but certainly the debate following the Boston tragedy will
invoke debate on the subject. It ought
to take stage with the gun debate. (Why
hasn’t it happened in the Middle East?)
Perhaps even more ominous is a danger from nature – solar storms or “flares”,
with huge coronal mass ejections, on the scale of the 1859 Carrington
Event. They happen, but most miss the
Earth. Every hundred years or so, we can
have a CME that hits our magnetosphere directly and is large enough to do
long-lasting grid to the power grid.
A good question, or course, is, what, from a technical
viewpoint, should power companies do (besides paying dividends to shareholders,
including me) to harden their grids – especially huge transformers – from such
events or threats. Should homeowners or
property managers do anything? I think
we should be debating the engineering and science before the sociology and politics. I’m not prepared for a world of “doomsday
preppers”. Obviously the huge tech
companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) belong in the debate.
Of course, I grew up with doomsday debates – the Cold
War. The Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded
while I was a “patient” at NIH, and I, since I went into DC to school at night,
was the only one who followed what was going on. There are reports (from PBS -- "The Man Who Saved the World" -- Oct. 23, 2012, TV blog) that one Russian submarine
commander could have chosen to ignite
WWIII but there are other reports that say the historical accounts of Kennedy’s
actions are overblow, More recently,
after 9.11, there was renewed debate on the idea that asymmetric actors could
launch nuclear blasts (which produce an EMP effect if at high enough alitutde),
or “radiation dispersion devices”. The
possibility has been mentioned in conjunction with North Korea.
But the possibility of a precipice has always
influence our “moral” thinking. There is a notion that if families are weak or
social capital is lacking because of “hyper-individualism”, a society is more
vulnerable to attack from an ideological enemy that wants to prove something.
That bears on someone like me, because those of us who are “different” but
powerful in unusual ways benefit from “hyper-individualism” and perhaps tend to
invite potentially dangerous indignation from those who are displaced by it.
Global warming and climate change – and I think the
science (starting with Al Gore, it you must – even if he didn’t invent the
Internet) is almost beyond question. The
world will change. But, compared to the
threats above, climate change is gradual, although it can cause huge local
catastrophes that can test social capital in a society unprepared for it.
But that’s one reason why power grid stability, as
an issue, needs top priority from journalists and bloggers, even right now.
The “social capital” area has one huge challenge whose
public debate is still diffuse. That’s “demographic
winter”. We are not producing enough
children to support our elderly, as we live longer. Specifically, that problem produced a flap in
2012 about filial responsibility laws, (in about 30 states), which produced an
uptick in my own blog stats last spring when I reported on a Pennsylvania case
(John Pittas) regarding these laws. By
and large, we see the debate reflected more in “entitlement” reform (Social
Security, Medicare), and even sequestration and the debt ceiling.
From a social point of view, we’re learning
something we knew 50 years ago but somewhat forgot. People have to learn to
take care of one another, besides themselves.
That rises to a moral issue, but it isn’t quite the same issue as “personal
responsibility” as libertarians see it, or as following through with the
consequences of one’s “choices” (like having children). There are some responsibilities (filial) we
will have anyway, and that observation could have a profound effect on how we
see marriage. Yet, that point got
completely overlooked in the gay marriage debate.
I got started in publishing and later blogging over
a single issue, “gays in the military” (aka “don’t ask don’t tell”), how that
related to conscription in the past, and how that related to all our ideas of
individual liberty and balancing those to the needs of the group. That issue seems largely settled today (maybe
not enough for complacency), but two biggies that I have found (power grid,
filial responsibility) seem now centric to my attention.
I can reflect also on how we see the “urgency” of
issues. The power issue I mention today
is partly technical, and lends itself to objective examination, outside of the
parameters of group emotions or moral ideology.
That assessment needs to happen quickly.
On the other hand, we often see politicians and pundits claiming that
society will collapse when some new “rights” are recognized or reinterpreted in
a new way. No, heterosexual marriage won’t
collapse because of gay marriage, and neither will “society”. But a
technological future, so promising for democracy and equality, as outlined in
the book from Google’s former CEO, could take a huge setback if we don’t tend
to our infrastructure now – and in that
sense, the continued sequestration (the way it plays out) amounts to a serious
national security problem. And there is
a moral issue that impacts individuals like me – our resilience, our ability to
step up to the needs of others when we really have to. Without that expectation from us, “meaning”
starts to become diffuse, others make real sacrifices, and indignation and
instability grows, sometimes to the point of being dangerous.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
High school off-campus online "beauty" ranking content raises free speech, ethical questions
A “beauty” contest (of sorts) conducted online and “off
campus” a Seattle high school (Issaquah) will be seen by some as a test of the
limits of free speech.
It’s called “May Madness”, in which students
(usually boys) “rank” photos of the high school’s “hottest” female
students.
At the beginning of the film “The Social Network”, a
caricature of Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg is shown writing a system to do
just that with Harvard co-eds (Movies blog, Oct. 3, 2010).
School officials say there is nothing they can do
about it, since it happens off-campus.
NBC Today has a story by Lauren Ina here.
KING5 in Seattle offered this YouTube video:
The television station also offers this story.
This does seem to be an example of “social combat”
that leads to bullying. It would not be as much of a problem if “contestants”
were asked for permission for their photos to be ranked first.
In a chess tournament, you can’t get rated until you
actually play, and make a choice to.
(Oh, but there aren’t enough events that aren’t rated by USCF, but that’s
another matter for later).
There’s an existential problem with the idea of “ranking”
people. Of course, that what schools do
when they give grades (and remember how that used to affect the military draft
back in the 1960s?) Arvin Vohra
mentioned the “ranking” issue in his recent book (see Books blog, April
19).
But what is supposed to happen to those who wind up
in “the second division” (to borrow a Major League Baseball term from the
1950s)? Do they do what others tell them
to do? Is this about power? It sounds like the roots of
authoritarianism.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Ninth Circuit deals blow to copyright trolls (Righthaven cases)
Tech Dirt (and other sources like EFF) reports that
an appeals court (the Ninth Circuit) has ruled that a copyright owner could not
simply transfer the right to sue over to a law frim (Righthaven) without
transferring over other rights, to publish and distribute. That means that the “copyright troll” business
model of Righthaven cannot stand up in court, at least in the Ninth
Circuit. I don’t think there are any
other conflicting rulings in other circuits, and it is very unlikely that the
Supreme Court would disagree with the Ninth Circuit in this case. ‘
Just saying you own the copyright doesn’t make it
so. You really have to own all the
rights A secret back-door agreement can
invalidate your rights.
Tech dirt has the story here.
Can we get a similar ruling for patent trolls?
The court did invalidate a finding that reproducing
a whole article could be “Fair Use”, because it said that it did not need that
finding. It does not preclude that
finding in another case where it might be procedurally necessary.
Here’s a panel discussion from the Media Bloggers
Association lawyer Ron Coleman a year ago.
Bloggers can’t file amicus briefs on their own, but
need a legal group to do it for them. I
can’t find an active site for MBA right now, but it does have a Facebook site,
here.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
New York Times modifies paywall to exempt videos; Dish and Washington Post go to paywalls
Newspapers are starting to experiment more with
their paywalls.
The New York Times has tightened loopholes (“NYClean”,
regarding “bookmark-lets”) but will soon exempt video from the paywall, as it
tries to become a more video friendly outlet. It says it will build franchises around brands
connected to the paper. The content will
be developed by Acura and Microsoft (and Bing).
“Paid Content” has a story here.
Andrew Sullivan has started a $1.99 a month content
payment policy for his site, The Dish, and says that the Dish actually needs to
raise $900,000 to operate. It appears that when individual journalists have columns on corporate sites, their "sponsors" expect them to bring in certain specified amounts of revenue -- that's how it works. You can find
the subscription link at the top of the page, here. It’s also “only” $19.99 a year.
And The Washington Post has announced it will launch
a “leaky” paywall this summer. The
paywall will not count visits that come from Google or social media, and exempt
some categories of people.
The Post has its story here.
The start date for the paywall policy
was not provided yet.
The Post does charge for some archived articles, as
do many papers.
According to the video above, the New York Daily
News is also considering a paywall.
As a practical matter, paywalls don’t matter much to
people with paid home subscriptions, because they are usually included in some
sort of arrangement. But some people don’t
like home subscriptions because of the potential security problems – of having
to stop them to go away, and with recent stories (in the LA area) of vacation
stops leaking to burglars through distribution channels. Some papers have tightened their procedures
for handling stops for this reason, requiring sooner notification. Some authorities think it is important to have the social
neighborhood connections (“social capital”) to get neighbors to remove
newspapers or unwanted commercial or
political fliers from homes. (USPS stop mail delivery seems very secure.)
Many smaller town newspapers have put in paywalls,
which sounds self-defeating as major stories are usually available from larger
news organizations. One problem is that most people cannot reasonably subscribe to many smaller local papers, so it is harder for anyone to keep up with local news in many different areas.
My blogs to link to papers that have paywalls. Users are responsible for being able to
access the links, either by staying within a free limit, or having paid the
piper.
Youtube embeds are usually free, however, except for
some complete motion pictures which can be rented for low fees for viewing,
I'm in "no position" to consider the same measure as Mr. Sullivan. But after I get farther in my own content plans, it seems possible I could "join forces" with some others, and strategies could change. But nothing now.
Labels:
free content issue,
newspaper hard times,
paywalls
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Data brokers have an indirect but serious effect on "online reputation"; FTC runs a "sting"
“Online reputation”, the way pundits have discussed
the problem in terms of social media exposure, may be overridden by data
collection companies, according to a story by Craig Timberg on p A10 of the
Washington Post on Wednesday, May 08, 2013. Federal Trade Commission employees
posed as potential customers in a civil “sting”. The link for the story (“Data
brokerage industry warned on privacy rules”) is here.
The FTC has its own press release on the matter, here.
The FTC has its own press release on the matter, here.
The companies accumulate data on consumers from a
variety of sources, including credit reports and public records, as well as
social media. Because of identity theft,
there is a risk that much of the information is wrong. Information is marketed to various kinds of
clients, often for offers. But it can
also be used to build off-site blacklists for insurance, housing and
employment.
The list of affected companies includes 4Nannies
(regarded to nanny employment), Brokers Data, Case Breakers, ConsumerBase,
Criminal Check, People Search, Now, U.S. Information Search, U.S. Data
Corporation, and USA People Search.
Here’s a YouTube video by KMIR6 (Palm Springs CA) on
data brokers, from March 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)