Kindling Kindle

I'm late to the party, but I apparently was the only one put off by unoriginality of Oppenheimer's Kindle lament. In which an author at the Atlantic makes an argument similar to my own. And there are apparently three guests to this party, as another Atlantic reader takes Oppenheimer to task for even suggesting that romance might die at the hand of the Kindle!

Still, even Eleanor Barkhorn falls into the old trap:

Of course, we've lost something as we've transitioned from old-media flirting to new. Like so much on the web, broadcasting our likes and dislikes can turn into an exercise in self-promotion, and we can be calculating about how we reveal what what's on our bedside tables and in our playlists.

Well, no; not exactly. Even back in the days of dusty paper tomes, people chose to display books as "an exercise in self-promotion." Oppenheimer himself pretty much concedes as much in his column. I'm not sure why the Barkhorn thinks people weren't "calculating" about what was on their bedside tables or playlists prior to the invention of electronic media.

I can post a tweet about how much I'm getting out of reading the Washington Post's Top Secret America series—when really I'm poring over Us Weekly's latest spread about Jessica Simpson's weight loss.

Well, yes; sure. But the same was always true. There always was, and always will be the stranger that we never let people see (or try hard to prevent them from seeing). I suppose no one has ever left an unread copy of Crime and Punishment on the coffee table for guests to see while stashing a copy of People magazine away in the bedside table?

She goes on to say how her planned posts to Gchat, or GoodReads or Twitter designed to solicite responses are ...

... far less pure than glancing at the stranger across from us on the subway and realizing he's reading our favorite novel.

Really? Far less pure? In the case of a stranger who is legitimately reading a book, yes, perhaps. In the case of someone who leaves a book out as a promo piece, or carries with him as a Red Badge of Courage, its a difference in type, not in kind. And hardly less pure. Someone who posts comments hoping to bait certain responses from certain people is likely to be the same kind who puts out unread books. Both are unpure.

And I don't even know what to say about this bit of self-important hoity toitty pretentiosness ...

When I made the man I was dating during sophomore year of college read All The King's Men before I would consider calling him my boyfriend ...

Honestly? Where do these people come from?

Getting back to the original purpose, Oppenheimer has responded. To the Atlantic columns, not my criticism. And in a not very convincing way. He sorta just rehashes his argument that the Kindle doesn't provide what books do. Never mind that someone reading a Kindle is almost certainly reading a book, and that its just as easy to ask a Kindle reader "whatch reading" as it is to ask a book reader what he/she thinks of The Cabin. Nevermind that for all the lamenting about how we will no longer see people reading Rand on the subway and be able to strike up a convo, you would rarely run up against someone who was both someone you would want to talk to and who was reading a book you would want to discuss.

Redux: Tales of August

Since this summer/August has been especially hot and especially humid, I thought a little stroll down memory lane might be appropriate.

As this 2009 post and the associated story point out, it might be better if we just got rid of August all together.

This would tea me off

The price of tea could be rising in the near future.

Say it ain't so.

Sadly, seems like it is so. Blame poor weather and rising wages in China for the increase. And I plan to do just that.

Broadcasting stupidity

Two things of note that fall under this headline:

First, the National Association of Broadcasters is seeking legislation that would require all portable electronic devices to include FM radio. I assume this extends to cell phones, music players and the like. But as posters point out, will it extend to electric razors? And what about AM radio? This is such an obvious ploy for Congressional action to ensure the dominance and relevance of an existing medium - its scary in its overtness. Not that all that many people listen to FM radio any more, what with Pandora, digital music, HD radio and satellite radio. If this passes, I might have to stop listening to FM radio.

The second I have to kinda shoe-horn in. I fully support the right of Muslims to build a mosque/community center at the old Burlington Coat Factory two blocks from Ground Zero. I also support those who oppose the plans to criticize the plan and oppose it, as long as the opposition includes newspaper columns and protests and not government action, which should/would be barred. I even have mixed feelings about whether the plan is appropriate. But I think that you are generally broadcasting your stupidity if you rely on the constitution or religious freedoms to support your argument.

See, I told you they both fit the headline.

I'm kicking Hell and taking names

I've been playing a second go-round of the pretty damned good game Dante's Inferno.

At various points in the game, the punishment of the damned are shown or explained. Playing the game got me interested in the source matter (the poem of similar name), which got me doing research on the topic.

And that led me to two types of sinners and their punishments that got me thinking. The first is those who worshipped the Devil or a demon. Their punishment (in game) is supposedly reduced from other nonbelievers and deniers, but they are still locked in burning caskets.

The second is simonists, who sold church offices for personal gain. They are help upside down (per wikipedia's take on the poem) and dipped into fonts carved into the rock of the eighth circle of hell.

I've always envisioned Hell as the Devil's domain. A land he lords over as his own personal fiefdom. But this punishment of those who you would otherwise take as the Devil's ground troops made me wonder. Plus (spoiler alert) the game ends with you freeing the Devil from his bonds.

So... is Hell the Devil's playground, and thus he's punishing those souls that reside there; or is Hell God's creation, and he's the one who is doing the punishing, and the Devil, while there, is mostly imprisioned there? I'd have to say right now I'm leaning toward the later.

But that would raise some additional questions about God, his ability to forgive and forget, and his kindness.

Time for a divorce, indeed

Sometimes, doing what is fair or decent or even nice isn't what is right or proper. Sometimes, to do what is right, you have to look beyond your own prejudices and beliefs and micro-systems and look at the system from a macro level. bub

It's a testament to your ability to reason that you take a position antithetical (Position A) to your own actual position (Position B) because you believe that while Position B is the nice and fair outcome, you realize that Position A is proper under the circumstances.

Sometimes, many times even, Position A and Position B are the same position. Women and African Americans should have the right to vote. Legislation ensuring those rights fulfilled both the "fair" outcome that you root for (Position B) as well as the "proper" one (Position A).

On to the point of the post: I've often been at odds with myself because I strongly believe that the fair, nice and decent thing to do is to allow gay marriage. If its going to have to be a legislative action, then to that extent I strongly support legislation raising gay marriage to the level of hetero marriage.

On the other hand, I can't wrap my mind around how its a constitutional issue (though the courts don't seem to agree with me). As I see it, the constitution doesn't guarantee marriage at all. I don't see that anywhere in there. Nobody else does either, apparently, because its not argued as a point. I don't see the "victories" in the court cases as all that good a thing, because while Position A B wins, I fear Position B A loses. In the long run, Position B A is much more important. Every time Position A B irrationally wins over Position B A, the system becomes that much more contorted. Anyway, back to the issue at hand.

Rather than argue that gay marriage is constitutional in and of itself, people argue that the "equal protection" clause requires that a gay individual be allowed to marry another gay individual. But that "gay" man/woman already has the right to marry another woman/man, just like a heterosexual does. To me, extending it like that necassarily leads to all kinds of problems. Like, where do you stop the progression? What about bestiality? What about incest? What about pedophilia? What about polygomy.

While we are on the topic, what about polygomy? Because, under the above formulation (equal protection), I'm not sure how you argue against it. All the evidence (i.e. - divorce rate, broken marriages, cheating spouses) suggests that monogomy doesn't work that well. Its rare in nature (and apparently humans), as well. I'm actually OK with that outcome, but its still not an argument I'd make to reach that outcome (there is the Position A/B thing, see, it does all come around). And I used the easy example, because the arguments against polygomy are pretty weak. The harder core situations I mentioned above become very iffy using the equal protection logic. There is a group called NMBLA (or some such) that supports and promotes man-boy love. Its a lifestyle choice and natural, they argue. Aren't they entitled to equal protection?

That leads me to the point of my post: All this could be avoided if we divorced the state from the marriage business. As the article points out, if we didn't have "state sponsored" marriage, two individuals (or more) could sign a contract with whatever (probably mostly standardized) terms they agreed too, call it whatever they wanted, and be on their marry way. Call it marriage, call its a union, hell, call it a balzag (well, don't call it that).

Instead, we have small/minority two groups trying to push what they think the outcome should be onto the rest of us. One wants marriage limited, the other wants it to extend to gays (but, apparently not to polygomists, based on the legislation and court arguments). That's just two groups that currently have power trying to enforce their will.

There is a better way: remove the ability to "enforce" the will of anyone. Get the government out of the marriage business.

UPDATE: Think of the Position A/Position B thing like a tower. Sure, you can probably build a really tall tower quickly, but you want to make sure its on solid foundation and well built, otherwise it all comes tumbling down at the smallest shift in the ground. I'd rather forgo the really tall tower, and slowly build a well-built tower. It might take me years to get where you'll be in a couple months, but 10 years from now, my tower will be around; will yours?