« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »

March 31, 2005

Mark Cuban

Gelf Magazine has an interesting interview with outspoken Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on the current Grokster case before the Supreme Court. I think I saw a lot of his views on this issue:


GM: You say that software doesn't steal content, people steal content. So what do you think of the RIAA's strategy of suing individual file-sharers?

MC: I have no problem with it at all. If you steal, you are wrong. You should have to deal with the consequences. We have plenty of laws on the book to make sure that happens.

I agree. While file-sharing and copyright infringement intersect, the problem spaces are entirely separate. I do, however, think the RIAA is an iron-fisted tyrant.


GM: Does the Betamax precedent apply to the Grokster case, even though people are using digital technology like Grokster to amass libraries, not just to tape shows and enhance viewing convenience?

MC: Yes. People amassed libraries on tape as well. You can pick up any movie-collector mag and see the ads to buy a VHS or DVD of any TV show ever made. That's a big library, and those ads have been there for at least 10 years. The industry doesn't care.

Again, he's right.

Say what you will about Cuban and his management style, but you can't deny he's smary guy.

March 29, 2005

Transformation (2)

Twenty four hours later, and I'm riding through downtown in a t-shirt and rolled up jeans. I'm moving quickly, sliding between cars and pedestrians. I slide on to the drops and hammer through the light at Smithfield and Liberty, and quickly, barely breaking cadence, I lean left to 10th Street, and then right to Penn Avenue. Soon, the sun is at my back in the Strip District, my shadow stretching out in front of me, the pinwheel of my chainring measuring my pace.

March 28, 2005

Transformation

Spring has come, bringing with her warmer temperatures, cloudy skies, and bouts of rain. I had managed to miss the showers this morning, the puddles in the playground across the street tranquil. My rain jacket was rolled up and strapped on my bag, and I was happily spinning along Butler Street with knickers, a long sleeve jersey, and a vest. Pure bliss. The roads were still damp from the early morning drizzle, and the strips of mud (a dirty reminder of the winter) sprayed my hands and arms, freckling them. As I entered the maze of downtown, the drizzle started again, but I was too close to the office to bother with the rain jacket.

Eight hours later. The sun has peeked out from behind the blanket of gray here and there, but the covers have been drawn again. The streets, at least those I can see from my window, are slowing drying. The rain jacket stays in place. I spin back out of time, reading traffic, timing lights, slipping in and out of the machinery of rush hour. The headwind picks up in the Strip District, and I dodge the ever-widening potholes on the skirt of Smallman Street. Back on Butler Street, it starts again -- just a slight sprinkle, barely enough moisten the arms of my jersey. But a few blocks later, the rain falls in earnest, soaking my jersey. Too late to stop and put on the jacket now.

The switch is gradual. A few blocks later, I'm pedaling with a greater sense of purpose. Drops of rain gather on the brim of my helmet, and I promise, again, to buy a cap. I pick up my cadence, push my helmet down a bit, and lean forward. Soon, the blinders are on. I don't notice the traffic as much -- I'm just aware enough to know where the cars are, and where they are going, but I don't the time to peer in the windows. The mud on the side of the road flicks off my tyres and on my shoes, lower legs, and face. As I pass the 62nd Street Bridge and approach the short rise near Baker Street, I'm out of my saddle earlier than the first telephone past the antiques store. I've got no interest in conserving energy. Despite the warmer temperatures, I can feel my arms, now soaked to the bone, cramping a bit. It doesn't matter much though. A few minutes later, the rain slows a bit, and roll up to the house.

March 22, 2005

The End of the Road

I've been rather active in the current current discussion about Terri Schindler-Schiavo. I've discovered that my opinions don't fit well on either side of the argument, and I've been active because this sort of situation has been more than an ideological exercise for me in the past. But after several days of hard thought and discussion, I've reached the end of the road. There isn't a positive outcome right now.

There is little doubt that Michael Schiavo could have provided better care for Terri. But it also seems that her parents went up and down the state court system in Florida to no avail, leading me to think that either there are serious problems with the family courts, or Mr. Schiavo's care was not as terrible as some would have us believe. I'm having trouble determining which is the case, given that the versions of the facts that each side presents are so different.

The federal government, in the shape of Congress and the President, have gotten involved with S. 686, aimed specifically at getting the Schiavo matter into the federal court system. While there is proof that much of this is nothing more than political grandstanding, our legislators are painting themselves as warriors for the "culture of life" that is so important for the Republian party (note, however, that most conservatives, while fighting for Ms. Schiavo's life, have no problem strapping criminals into the electric chair). While conservatives are framing this as protecting someone's right to live, I see it (as does Joe Kearns) as encroaching on our ability to make medical decisions for our families.

For me, the issue at stake here is simple -- is it morally permissible to allow someone who is sick to die? Are we morally obligated to poke holes in our loved ones to pump them full of food, oxygen, and medicine? What defines extra-ordinary medical measures? Fifty years ago (as Dr. Kearns so eloquently points out) we allowed our family members to pass away when they were sick, partially because medical technology couldn't necessarily keep them alive, but also perhaps because that generation understood death (especially from a Christian perspective) a bit better. Conservatives have cried "Nazi" at this, claiming we are only a short step away from the eugenics of the Third Reich. We only slouch toward totalitarianism when the State cannot allow families to care for their own. Let us make the medical decisions for our loved ones. If someone believes this has been done in bad faith, the state court system can arbitrate those disagreements. A "culture of life" does not mean we cannot allow our loved ones to pass away.

But this is the end of the road for me on this topic. Any effort to find a bedrock moral compass for this issue will fail. There are only two conclusions to be draw -- either we do everything possible in every situation to prolong life (whether or not the family or patient approves) or we simply do not care for the sick. Neither option is very palatable or, at least for me, morally appropriate. So I'm left with a grey area -- one which I hope to never have to navigate again. But I'm done talking about it.

I leave this with Dahlia Lithwick's take on our activist Congress

March 18, 2005

Kerouac

Some random Googling to answer a pop culture trivia question at work led me to find that Francis Ford Coppola is filming Jack Kerouac's On the Road. I had two academic obsessions in college -- Ludwig Wittgenstein and Kerouac, so I'm interested to see what Coppola does with the book. I also discovered that Kerouac's On the Road manuscript is currently on tour. That very long piece of paper has an interesting story which has led more than one critic to label Kerouac a "mere typist."

March 15, 2005

The Bible and Politics

I've been spending quit a bit of time thinking about the relationship of faith and participation in the Public Square. A critical part of this has been examining the Bible to find what God's tells us about what our involvement should look like. As James Brink has already pointed out, this is essentially a theological endeavor, and therefore it is highly unlikely that we will ever come to the same conclusions about what reformational politics should be. Lately, I've been mulling over two passages in particular, Genesis 41 and the Beatitudes.

Genesis 41 is the more overtly political of the two passages. Joseph, a servant in Egypt, has been called to interpret the dreams of Pharoah. He foretells of seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine. Pharoah, impressed by Joseph, places him in charge of preparing the country for the famine. Joseph collects grain in every town and village, and when the famine does arrive, the State is able to sell the grain back to its citizens, and even to foreigners, and the effects of the famine are averted. God, through Joseph and the government of Egypt, cares for His people and provides for them in a time of need. Granted, this care did not come as handouts from the government (the grain was sold), but the people were cared for nonetheless. Pharoah did not shake his finger at his people, claiming they did not orepare themselves for the famine -- he provided them what they needed.

The Beatitudes are, arguably, not overtly political. Jesus is teaching here, outlining the values that His followers should hold. But, as the Burkean Canuck has rightly pointed out, the Bible is often at its most political when not explicity discussing politics, and this is case here. Even Richard Muow has come to understand this, thanks to Kurt Vonnegut. One question I have always posed to conservative Christians is why don't passages like Matthew 5 apply when you are involved in the political process? Why, as Christian in government, should you not heed Christ's commands and care for your neighbor with the resources you have?

On a related note (and one that will require more thought): based on this discussion of the relationship of faith and science, do we need to have the same discussion about the relationship of faith and politics? Are we looking for explicit answers that aren't necessarily there?

March 13, 2005

Rally Mexico Recap

Petter Solberg has his championship campaign off to a fine start this season, and the Norwegian scored his second win of the year at this weekend's Rally Mexico. Driving the 2005 spec Subaru Impreza in its debut, Solberg took the lead on SS1 and never looked back. While Peugeot's Marcus Gronholm applied steady pressure on Leg 1, Peugeot management instructed Gronholm it was more important to bring his 307 to the finish ramp in the points rather than risk an off chasing Solberg. Despite Gronholm's second place finish, it was good event for Peugeot, as Markko Martin has continued his consistent driving, finishing on the podium in third place. Sebastien Loeb, after damaging his Citroen during the shakedown, started well, but more problems with his Xsara left him well down the order at the end of Leg 1. Loeb drove well for the next two days, however, securing a handful of stage wins and climbing back to fourth place overall. Loeb's teammate Francois Duval was not as fortunate, and Duval retired on Leg 2.

Mitsubishi also continued their good form in Mexico, with Harri Rovanpera finishing in fifth and Gilles Panizzi in eighth. While neither were in the hunt for more points, they were the only team besides Peugeot to get both cars to the finish ramp, leaving the Japanese marquee tied with Ford for second place in the manufacturer's championship. This was the first rally for the team to test new active differentials on the Lancers, and both Rovanpera and Panizzi said more work would have to be done, leaving the team quite optimistic for their chances on the run of five gravel events following Mexico.

Ford's Toni Gardemeister could only manage sixth place on his first Mexican event, and though the Finn lost the overall championship lead to Solberg, he is still in the thick of the battle. Ford privateer Antony Warmbold took seventh, furthering his cause of getting a full factory drive in the very near future. Warmbold has been a consistent top 12 finisher over the past two seasons, so expect his services to be in demand by the major marquees after the season.

Other notes from the rally:

Subaru's newest recruit, Chris Atkinson nearly stormed into the points in his second WRC event, holding as high as fifth place on Leg 1, but damage to the suspension on his Impreza cut short Leg 2, and a drop in oil pressure on Leg 3 finally forced him out of the rally in an attempt to preserve the engine (WRC rules mandate engines must survive two events before overhaul -- this is a cost-cutting measure). Subaru management is quite pleased with Atkinson's progress however, and with the series of gravel events on the schedule, he shoud find himself in the points very soon.

Skoda could do no better than a ninth place for Armin Schwarz. The team introduced the 2005 spec Fabia in Mexico. Jani Passonen did have problems with both his car's gearbox and a cow, and could do no better than 13th. Both drivers did say, however, that the new Fabia faired well on the rough roads.

The championship travels across the globe in April for Rallye New Zealand.

March 09, 2005

Winter, Extended

After temperatures hovering around 60 earlier in the week, winter has refused to go quietly into that goodnight. Tuesday morning brought high winds, snow, and ice back to the city. The conditions were the worst I've ridden in so far -- it rained the previous evening, then as the temperatures dropped, it began to snow. Thanks to winds in excess of 30mph, anything that was snow-covered or wet turned to verglas. Traffic was, expectedly, a complete mess. While Butler Street had been salted, there were still icy spots, and the thin strip between traffic and parked cars was a crapshoot of snow, slush, and ice. The usual 25 minute took almost 45 minutes, including a coffee/warm-up-my-hands stop at La Prima.

Today, the snow is gone, and the winds have calmed, but the air is still frigid. The streets, while dry, are covered with a confectioner's sugar coating of pulverized road salt. It swirls up in clouds behind the cars and trucks, getting in your eyes and leaving the strong taste of salt in your mouth. The sun pokes out from the gray clouds now and again, but right now, snow is blowing sideways past my office window, and whitecaps ebb and flow on the river. When will winter leave?

Walking the Walk

Hat tip to Derek

Richard Mouw has a modest proposal: let's really talk about "moral values" in the Public Square by using Jesus' call to action -- the Beatitudes. But what intrigued me most was Mouw's source:

Actually the idea is not original with me. I got it from an unlikely source when it comes to spiritual matters: Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut, a gifted novelist not known specifically for his religious insights, made some good theological sense last year in a column he wrote. He noted that there is a lot of talk lately about making the Ten Commandments visible in public places, but no one ever seems to mention the Beatitudes as having any meaning for our public life. Why not? he asks. After all, the Ten Commandments are from Moses, but if you really believe in Jesus you should want his unique teachings to get some publicity. So, proposes Vonnegut, let’s put “Blessed are the merciful” signs in our courtrooms. And let’s have a big “Blessed are the peacemakers” billboard in the Pentagon.

Would the average Christian think they could learn something from Vonnegut?

March 08, 2005

Moral Ambiquity and Economics

This post by Dignan nicely illustrates the moral, umm, complexity of Christian conservatives (though I wouldn't classify Dignan as one of those folks, because, while I don't agree with his politics, I think they are fairly developed from a Christian perspective).

The subject of his discussion is the much-maligned corporate whipping boy, Wal-Mart. It's much easier to catalog their ills than it is to defend their practices, and even Dignan admits he doesn't like them, but he defends them, as free market capitalists are wont to do. He rightly concludes:

On the whole, I am very unimpressed by criticisms of Wal-Mart wages and impact upon local communities. It is entirely within the power of the people of this country to bring Wal-Mart to its knees. Yet, Wal-Mart continues to grow and prosper. What does that tell us about the choices that America is making?

But it's here that I have to cry foul. Dignan is right -- it is incumbent upon consumers within a free market economy to effect change by using their power as consumers. We very well could put Wal-Mart out of business, but that requires a group effort, something that many conservatives abhor. There are many churches that have tried to wield economic power this way, and they may have been at least slightly effective, but I think this sort of action still misses the point. Conservatives (especially Christians) refuse to judge economic behavior in the name of the Free Market. Sure, they will, as Dignan does, point out the perhaps Wal-Mart doesn't treat its employees well, but, they'll say, those people can work elsewhere. And, of course, they are right. But, I believe that is beside the point.

Conservatives (and conservative Christians, especially) are very willing to use the government to intervene when a particular behavior ruffles their moral sensibilities (see homosexuality and homosexual marriage). They believe that people cannot make the proper decisions about these matters, and therefore the government, in the interest of the greater good of society, should step in. All bets are off, however, when the subject is economics (except in the cases of monopolies and massive corporate corruption). The market will take care of itself, they say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't like your employer, work elsewhere.

I find it a bit hypocritical that conservative Christians are willing to turn the other way on economic matters, yet when the subject is homosexuality and gay marriage, the government has to intervene. Such faith in the invisible hand of the free market seems almost idolatrous. I am not necessarily promoting heavy government intervention in the marketplace (though I just might be), but I am promoting Christians being more vocal about issues of economic justice. I would like to hear Christians being critical of corporations rather than consumers (as Dignan does). Again, Dignan isn't completely wrong -- people do need to make better choices in their lives -- but the blame needs to be distributed fairly. Fighting for economic justice is more than simply educating consumers.

Wandering

Things have been quiet, and I'm still trying to put my finger on way. Perhaps it's the weather -- after three perfect spring days, I awoke this morning to sound of car tires on wet pavement and an even coating of snow of ground. I rode home yesterday in a t-shirt and pants, and now, the temperature is hovering in the 20s. But I won't use the weather as an easy excuse.

I've been flirting with idea of the going to graduate school. Right of out school, I decided to avoid more school (and debt), so I packed up my philosophy and writing degrees and ran a climbing gym. In the following ten years or so, academia never really felt like an option. Once I started programming, I had completely forgotten about it -- there I was, working professionally in a field where I was nothing more than an autodidact -- why did I need graduate school? Now, after working for several tiny companies that have gone the way of the dodo bird, and stints of independent contracting, I'm working for the Big, Bad Corporation (mostly not by my own doing, since the company that hired me was promptly consumed by the Big, Bad Corporation). It's not the most challenging or interesting work (we joke that we just move buckets of data from here to there), but it is not stressful, and it pays well.

So, I watch Jen, now in an MFA program at Chatham, and I get a little jealous. The gang I run with online also makes me pine for drinking coffee, reading theology and philosophy, and writing. So, I started to consider my options. An MFA program would be "easiest" -- both Chatham and Carlow have programs geared toward professionals, so I could continue working. The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary has a Master of Arts in theology that can be done strictly in the evenings. CMU has a Master of Arts in philosophy with an emphasis on computational logic and design, again geared toward professionals. All are very attractive in their own ways.

I have been playing out the various situations in my head, trying to divine where I should be. But I haven't found the path quite yet. Going back to school while working would be an enormous burden -- the programs at CMU and PTS would require two classes a semester, meaning two evenings where I was away from home. Part of me thinks I'm not quite ready to do that. And despite the monotony of the current job, I'm not quite ready to give up on programming either. So bear with me as thoughts jump from writing fiction, studying theology, and reading Dooyeweerd -- my focus is clearly lacking. One day I think, hmmm, theology, and the next it's, hmmm, philosophy. And underlying each of those thoughts is,ahh yes, writing. And in the end, flitting back and forth means nothing really gets done.

March 05, 2005

Bucks for Bikes

Hat Tip: Eli

Congress is considering a tax break for employers and monthly compensation for bicycle commuters. I'll be watching this closely. I'm also curious what sort of stipulations will be attached should the bill pass (do you have to ride five days a week?).

March 03, 2005

Religion in the Public Square, Literally

This post was originally intended for the Dialogical Coffee House, as a long update to my original post there about the arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday regarding the legality of the display of the Ten Commandments in public spaces.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has weighed in on this afternoon's arguments about the public display of the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, it seems that Justice Scalia was the only person in the room to have spoken honestly about what these cases are really about:

Throughout the morning it becomes increasingly clear that Scalia is the only member of the court who is being truly honest. His position: Sure, the display is religious and not secular. Let's put up some crosses, too, and have a revival meeting. In this sense, Scalia represents the vast majority of the protesters outside. They are not venerating the historical secular influence of the commandments, whatever the lawyers inside the courthouse may say. They just really like God.

While legal hucksters on the side of people like Roy Moore have tried to legitimize the display of religious symbols in public spaces via their historical value, Scalia tells like it is. And Scalia had no time for these arguments: "But it's not a secular message! If you're watering it down to a secular message I can't agree with you." Even Lithwick gets it:

I wish there could be two Frays tonight: one for the law professors and scholars who truly believe in the commandments as a purely secular foundational document, and one full of the brave Scalia-like souls willing to admit that this case is about whether or not to welcome religion to the public square, pure and simple. I'd rather party with the second group.

I had to fight the urge to raise a pint for Scalia. Here he is, saying what he believes and (apparently) fighting for religion in the Public Square. But then, I think about what the cases are really about -- symbols of the Old Testament covenant between God and His people (even Justice Ginsburg knows this and points it out). We really shouldn't be staking our space in the Public Square with a hunk of granite. Our presence in the Public Square needs to be much more substantive.

March 01, 2005

On Certainty

Brian Weatherson, Crooked Timber contributor, has a interesting post about a bit of a tiff between Richard Rorty and Scott Soames that started as book critiques and morphed into ad hominen attacks and academic swipes. One of the concepts in dispute is the growing study of vagueness (non-philosophers, click the link at your own peril). While I read this stuff with some interest, I found words taken out of my mouth when I read this comment:

Didn’t Wittgenstein cure people of the desire to discuss this stuff?

Wouldn’t you rather read Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, or Strauss instead?

While I'm sure the comment was done with at least part of the tongue in cheek, there's still a point to be had there. Rorty, to some extent, proves this point here:

Crispin Wright takes up the topic of vagueness not because he cares deeply about how many grains it takes to make a heap but because doing so helps him formulate a view about the extent to which mastering a language can be treated as a matter of obedience to semantical rules – rules about how to line words up with things. It is an underlying concern with the question of whether and how language gets in touch with the world that has made vagueness a hot topic. Perceived relevance to such larger questions enables philosophers who specialise in heaps to shrug off the suggestion that they are trivialising a discipline that once had considerable cultural importance (and, in some countries, still does).

This was very much the point of Wittgenstein's study -- how do we use language correctly in philosophical discourse (and Wittgenstein would claim that once we sorted out language, many philosophical problems would simply fall away since we could talk about them correctly). But, Wittgenstein chose not to focus solely on the problem of the heap, and actually tried to make sense of things. The study of vagueness, as Rorty suggests, is re-examining the ground covered by Wittgenstein by examining a different linguistic problem.

All of the above should, however, be taken with a rather large grain of salt, since I've not read much beyond some primer material on vagueness.

Winter, Again

Here we are, in the home stretch to spring, when Old Man Winter rears his head again. It seems we've been spared the massive snowstorm much of the East has suffered, but we still have lots of wet snow, chilly temperatures, and high winds. The weather forced us home from Philadelphia a day early (I was actually writing a post about my little foray into Center City to get a new wheel for the Steamroller, but that just isn't happening), and I spent the day yesterday relaxing and hanging out with the boy. I did manage a quick spin up to Kraynick's shop, however, to find some cheap bars and grips for the winter fixie. Gerry has actually cleaned up the shop a bit, as I could move around with my bag on (usually it's a bull-in-the-china-shop situation which precariously piled boxes of parts everywhere). I did find a nice set of low-rise mountain bike bars for a mere $10, though I was very tempted to get the old school moustache bars he had (I didn't fit the fit work well on the bike though, since it's considerably shorter than the Steamroller).

Anyway...

I was really expecting the worst this morning when I woke up -- inches of snow on the roads, high winds, blowing snow -- but I soon heard the sound of tires on wet pavement and knew that it couldn't really be that bad. And it wasn't. The wind was blowing hard into my face once I got into the Strip District, and once or twice threatened to pull the front wheel away from me, but it was gusty, not constant. Very bearable, all things considered.

During the ride was thinking about why I do this. Since I hurt my back a few months ago (maybe more?), I think I've missed exactly one day of riding, and I didn't even make it to work that day (loads of snow before I had the beater). I don't really consider my obsessed, since I can spend a few days off the bike and not feel antsy or depressed. So what is it? Part of it, ironically, a bit of laziness. My only other option for getting to work would be the bus, and taking the bus means living according the bus schedule. I had trouble doing this before Seb was born, so with his variable thrown into the mix, making it the bus stop on time on any given morning is unlikely. So, the bike allows me to leave when I want to leave. The ride also allows me to exercise as I go to work -- the perfect two for one. And, I can justify a huge dinner and beer every night.

But laziness doesn't seem like a bulletproof reason to ride your bike everyday, rain or shine. What about stinginess? The cost to build up my Steamroller was less than a bus pass for a full year, and probably hundreds of dollars less than expensive than the costs of driving (gasoline, parking, etc). And since we don't own a second car, we save on insurance and maintenance costs.

Still, laziness and stinginess aren't the best reasons to subject yourself to the elements everyday. There are few days when I truly dread getting on the bike (typically due to rain or high winds). I truly enjoy being on my bike. I've been doing more errands on the weekends on the bike (usually when Seb is asleep), and I'm sure once Spring comes, I'll be heading to the gym on my bike regularly as well, if I actually go to the gym). Part of this is no doubt feeling like a contrarian, riding along congested roads in terrible weather, looking at the poor folks stuck in their warm cozy cars. There's also the satisfaction that comes from not being a slave to the weather, and just getting out there and doing it, regardless of conditions.

And now, looking out the office window, barely being able to see the opposite river bank thanks to snow, I realize I'll be putting all this into practice very soon...