$%*&#!

Nearly three-quarters of Americans questioned last week — 74 percent — said they encounter profanity in public frequently or occasionally, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. Two-thirds said they think people swear more than they did 20 years ago. And as for, well, the gold standard of foul words, a healthy 64 percent said they use the F-word — ranging from several times a day (8 percent) to a few times a year (15 percent) [...]

Younger people admit to using bad language more often than older people; they also encounter it more and are less bothered by it. The AP-Ipsos poll suggested that 62 percent of 18 to 34-year-olds acknowledged swearing in conversation at least a few times a week, compared to 39 percent of those 35 and older.

More women than men said they encounter people swearing more now than 20 years ago — 75 percent, compared to 60 percent. Also, more women said they were bothered by profanity — 74 percent at least some of the time — than men (60 percent.) And more men admitted to swearing: 54 percent at least a few times a week, compared to 39 percent of women.

My own feelings on the issue are divided. On the one hand, as an iconoclast, I think the fearful marginalization of arbitrary signifiers is ridiculous bordering on supersticious. Is there is a reason that f-u-c-k is heinous and something random like p-l-i-t-z isn’t? Sure, if we look at the word “fuck” etymologically, we’ll see that it comes from historical precursors inherently violent or pugilistic, but effective usage has largely erased the word’s relevant meaning. I wager that it’s used far more often as a simple interjection or filler adjective than it is as a synonym for intercourse.

But this isn’t merely about “fuck”: it’s about profanity in general, an amorphous concept at best because of changing cultural mores. In the age of Comstock, just saying “thigh” was considered scandalous. Nowadays, those conservative about language will complain that TV forces it upon us, that we’ve become desensitized to it, and of course we have. It’s part of the natural evolution of language. My suspicion is that the original Swedish focka or proposed Latin futuo didn’t have this connotation, and in the future, “fuck” will be an archaic signifier that we only refer to in etymology dictionaries.

Here’s the thing: language is incredibly powerful, and it’s inherently capacious enough to be inflammatory, celebritory, and anything in between. However, while it’s only natural that we place value judgements on language—that, for instance, copulate is “better” than fuck, or any one of a number of adjectives are better than fucking—I strikes me as absurd to make a certain subset of arbitrary sounds commensurate to physical violence or what-have-you.

Our prohibitions against racial slurs—”nigger,” for instance—is equally arbitrary, I think, but understandable insofar as the evolution of the original Latin niger into a bastardized slur is all too fresh, as is the concomitant abuse of the racial group it referred to. We don’t say “nigger” anymore because we understand that the word is the creation or appropriation of a history we’d just as soon forget. Can we say the same thing about “shit”? “Ass”? “Bitch,” “cunt,” “bastard,” “damn,” or any of the legion of “inappropriate” words that our government strives to protect us from?

Certainly not, but at the same time as we may undercut the moralist objections to profanity, we may bring up others.

Just ask Joe Cormack. Like any bartender, Cormack, of Fort Dodge, Iowa, hears a lot of talk. He’s not really offended by bad language — heck, he uses it himself every day. But sometimes, a customer will unleash the F-word so many times, Cormack just has to jump in.

“Do you have any idea how many times you’ve just said that?” he reports saying from time to time. “I mean, if I take that out of your vocabulary, you’ve got nothin’!”

I know people who use “fuck” in the same way people seem to use “like” nowadays. Swear words derive part of their impact from their taboo (that is another topic), and part of their taboo from their scarcity (in “polite” discourse, anyway). If every third word is “fuck,” then the word has lost its effectiveness. I don’t suggest the constant repetition of any word except articles, but much of the sub-literate populace in America uses profanity as a substitute for real communication. Perhaps they think that enough verbal “punches” will get across what their diction won’t. If there’s any negative impact of profanity on children, it has to do with their dwindling education and not with corrupting them, despite what concerned housewives and watchdog groups may want you to believe.

Either you respect that swear words predicate their power on the taboo and understand that this is a delicate balance likely to remain indefinitely, albeit with different words, or you propose that language be homogenized and abridged until there’s no room for differently-connotated synonyms to a normative word.

Me? Aw hell, fuck that damn shit.

§1066 · March 30, 2006 · 6 comments · Tags: , , ,

Monolith

This is one of the most interesting things I’ve seen in a long time, not just project-wise, but for the author’s long explanation as well.

The gist is this: we allow for the copyright of a particular waveform, the product of an artist’s recording. We even allow for the copyright of a digital representation of that waveform, even though the constituent bits themselves can’t be copyrighted in an of themselves. This is enough of a quandary, but the author’s program, Monolith, uses a basis file and an element file (which, theoretically, we could say is a copyrighted work), and by its particular algorithm produces a file that contains no data from either file. It is then, however, possible to get back the original copyright work by applying the algorithm in reverse (as it were).

Consider this simple fact: for a given Element file and any other file of the same length (call it fileA), it is possible to choose a Basis file that, when munged with the Element, will produce fileA as the resulting Mono file. Therefore, if a copyright holder claims that she owns the information in all Mono files that are munged from her work, she is also claiming copyright over all possible binary files that are the same length as her work. For example, suppose that fileA is an MP3 of a Beatles song, and the Element file is an MP3 of a Britney Spears song copyrighted by Jive Records. It is possible to find a Basis file that, when munged with the Spears song, will produce the Beatles song as the Mono file. Jive Records certainly cannot claim copyright over the Beatles song (which is copyrighted by Apple Records), nor can they claim copyright over any other Mono files munged from MP3s of their songs.

It’s a sticky situation. My immediate reaction is to think of this as encryption, and I suppose it’s analogous to such: the basis file is something like a cryptographic key—either public or private—and it alters the file in such a way as to become unreadable without unlocking it. I’ve no doubt that a Mono file contains no recognizable data from either input file, but much of what he talks about on the page is self-defeating.

Think of it this way:

  1. A recognizable waveform is copyrightable (recognizable being a qualitative judgment)
  2. A digital representation of the waveform is also copyrightable insofar as its interpretation reproduces a close enough facsimile of the original work.
  3. If constituent bits or groups of bits themselves are not unique to a particular song or encoding of a song, then surely what’s being applied is the spirit of the law: if it sounds like Britney’s single, regarldess of its encoding, then it’s Britney’s single.
  4. In the spirit of the law, then, encrypting or munging a copyrighted digital representation of an analog waveform does not make the resulting file irreconcilable with the original, insofar as we are concerned. The bits may be distinguishable, but as far as the interpretation of the law goes, I’m not sure how much of a future Monolith has as the savior of P2P

But, then, the author himself claims it to be a thought experiment (with some proof-of-concept code to back it up), and it’s certainly fascinating. Reading the explanation really got my mind churning over the problem. Check it out.

§1063 · March 29, 2006 · 10 comments · Tags:

Win Ben Stein’s Enmity

Ben Stein opines about the Oscars. The result? A mix of obvious truth and blithe ignorance.

I did not see every second of it, but my wife did, and she joins me in noting that there was not one word of tribute, not one breath, to our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan or to their families or their widows or orphans. There were pitifully dishonest calls for peace — as if the people we are fighting were interested in any peace for us but the peace of the grave. But not one word for the hundreds of thousands who have served and are serving, not one prayer or moment of silence for the dead and maimed.

If he didn’t see one second of it, and his wife did, then she doesn’t “join” him in noting anything. She does the noting, and he accepts her report as genuine. But that’s just semantics. As to the lack of wellwishing to our troops overseas, well, it’s the Oscars. Any of that sentiment would have been as forced as the film montages. It’s a masturbatory award ceremony: what do you want? A large American flag backdrop and heartfelt renditions of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

The idea that it is brave to stand up for gays in Hollywood, to stand up against Joe McCarthy in Hollywood (fifty years after his death), to say that rich white people are bad, that oil companies are evil — this is nonsense. All of these are mainstream ideas in Hollywood, always have been, always will be. For the people who made movies denouncing Big Oil, worshiping gays, mocking the rich to think of themselves as brave — this is pathetic, childish narcissism

Does Ben Stein think that George Clooney’s movie “stands up against” Joe McCarthy because they fear that he’ll rise, zombie-like, from the grave and attract his faithful legions? Or maybe—just possibly—because the issue of the media vs. the government is somehow a relevant topic? Oh, but wait, there’s more:

The brave guy in Hollywood will be the one who says that this is a fabulously great country where we treat gays, blacks, and everyone else as equal. The courageous writer in Hollywood will be the one who says the oil companies do their best in a very hostile world to bring us energy cheaply and efficiently and with a minimum of corruption. The producer who really has guts will be the one who says that Wall Street, despite its flaws, has done the best job of democratizing wealth ever in the history of mankind.

Except…. we don’t treat gays and blacks as equal. Oh, and oil companies somehow manage to reap obscene profits even in a stale economic period. Oh, and America has one of the greatest wealth gaps in the world. A guy who says these things isn’t brave; he’s shamefully dishonest.

No doubt the men and women who came to the Oscars in gowns that cost more than an Army Sergeant makes in a year, in limousines with champagne in the back seat, think they are working class heroes to attack America — which has made it all possible for them. They are not. They would be heroes if they said that Moslem extremists are the worst threat to human decency since Hitler and Stalin. But someone might yell at them or even attack them with a knife if they said that, so they never will.

No doubt. Certainly, rich actors who think that they are working class heroes would be sadly mistaken, although those that portray working class heroes may be celebrated for their bringing the issue to the fore. Of course, there’s a big difference, not just semantically, between “attack[ing] America” and pointing out America’s flaws. If I pretended that America was just dandy, well, I’d not only be an idiot, but I’d be failing my civic duty as well. A movie that points out crooked politicians or bigotry is not attacking America in a malicious sense; it’s only pointing out flaws that need to be fixed, just as we have been fixing flaws since our inception as a nation. It’s no more honest for Stein to call Goodnight, and Good Luck a cowardly attack than it would be to call Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a cowardly attack. Or maybe it is: damn the 1920s and their liberal media!

And no doubt many people—Hollywood included—understand the grave, looming threat of Islamic terrorism and its primacy. No doubt there are celebrities making asses of themselves by proclaiming otherwise, though I have yet to hear of any. The fact that liberals try so desperately to fix America domestically is because they want to make it worth saving.

Hollywood is above all about self: self-congratulation, self-promotion, and above all, self-protection. This is human and basic, but let’s not kid ourselves. There is no greatness there in the Kodak theater. The greatness is on patrol in Kirkuk. The greatness lies unable to sleep worrying about her man in Mosul. The greatness sleeps at Arlington National Cemetery and lies waiting for death in VA Hospitals. God help us that we have sunk so low as to confuse foolish and petty boasting with the real courage that keeps this nation and the many fools in it alive and flourishing on national TV.

All very valid points, though I would nitpick insofar as there was greatness in the Kodak theatre, because there is an incredible power in cinema, even if the Oscars turns it into a carnival. But I don’t ever recall calling a celebrity “brave,” only talented. Perhaps Ben Stein is chasing a ghost.

§1060 · March 28, 2006 · 5 comments · Tags: , , , , ,

Against All Enemies

Against All Enemies Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke
Publisher: Free Press
Year: 2004
Pages: 320

Needing something a little less daunting than Peake’s Gormenghast trilogy, I decided to postpone it by rereading Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies. Clarke, for those of you who don’t remember, was a counterterrorism expert in the Pentagon, serving in a variety of high-level capacities under four presidents, namely Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He is a registered Republican.

Thus, it makes me wonder somewhat when conservatives circled the wagons around Bush II and started calling Clarke a partisan opportunist, a hack, and a grudge-holder; a bitter political relic who published a “defamatory” book to stir up sales. Let it be known that Against all Enemies isn’t a simply a condemnation of the Bush II White House; rather, it’s a much broader view of the United States approach to counterterrorism.

The first section is easily the most gripping: Clark’s first-hand account of the 9/11 attacks, in narrative form, including epithet-laden phrases from frustrated government muckity-mucks. It’s also quite long, and pretty detailed, and it’s something that people haven’t heard much about. It is—literally—a line-by-line account of the Clarke/Cheney/Rice/Bush/&tc, and this inside look is fascinating.

From there, the book gets dryer, but no less interesting, in my estimation. After he begins in medias res with Chapter 1, he goes back to the beginning, to his years working for the Reagan Administration, and the disaster in Iran. Then, of course, comes Bush I, and finally Clarke gets to the Clinton years, on which he spends a considerably amount of time, since Islamic terrorism really began with the WTC bombings, and Clinton had to find some way to deal with that, along with his troubles in Sudan and the Balkans. Clarke’s assessment is that while Clinton was perhaps savvy to the threat of terrorism, and even Al Qaeda in general, the right confluence of government agencies never happened, and the right measures never taken.

Then comes Bush II, and all the key players of the first Gulf War seem to be clamoring for Iraq the moment they take office—and especially in the days following 9/11/01, much to Clarke’s considerably dismay and consternation. In effect, Clarke asserts that the Bush II response to Islamic terrorism has been a disaster for any one of a number of reasons, and he ends the book by listing the steps he believes should have been taken following the attacks.

Sure, Clarke isn’t exactly blessed with a golden pen, but I found the book remarkably well-constructed, despite its occasionally turgid prose. If you’re in the mood for part political thriller, part political screed, this is your book.

§1059 · March 26, 2006 · (No comments) · Tags:

Terrorists < Pirates

Ed at Freedom to Tinker comments on the triennial DCMA exception discussion.

Here’s a basic overview of the problem. Opponents of DRM say:

  1. There should be a stipulation allowing “users to remove from their computers certain DRM software that causes security and privacy harm”
  2. Exemptions to bad DRM would mean that labels would be under presssure to come up with good DRM
  3. Or, as worded by the CCIA and Open Source and Industry Association: add an exemption for DRM schemes that “employ access control measures which threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives.”

Then Big Media (BSA, RIAA, MPAA, &tc.) says:

  1. There wouldn’t be any incentive to create better DRM it “would be fundamentally undermined if copyright owners [...] were left in such serious doubt about which measures were or were not subject to circumvention under the exemption.
  2. [T]he boundaries of the proposed exemption would turn on whether access controls “threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives”

Now, I agree with Big Media insofar as the proposed exemptions are rather broadly defined, and you know that Big Media hates broad language unless it works to their benefit. However, when we’re talking about what defines a situation where DRM “threaten[s] critical infrastructure and potentially endanger[s] lives,” something tells me that we’re not talking about Joe Sixpack illegally obtaining the latest Korn album. That Big Media would quibble over such things is truly pathetic.

I’m surprised that they’re even pushing DRM so hard at all. Anyone who knows anything about technology has been saying for years that it’s a waste of time. It ruins your portable music player’s battery life, it can harm your computer, it doesn’t accurate reflect the usage pattern of most consumers, it’s not broadly compatible, and it hasn’t seemed to make a dent in the RIAA/MPAA’s bogeyman of INTERNET PIRACY!

Here’s the thing: if my options are to pay $X to download a 128kbps AAC, MP3, or WMA file with copy protection that I can’t use indefinitely or play everywhere, or to “illegally” download a release group’s rip at 192kbps/VBR or find a lossless FLAC version somewhere, then my choice is obvious. I hate to break it to big media, but as much as they’d like to be the ultimate arbiters of price, technology, and taste, it’s really market forces. I’m part of that market, I cast my vote, and my vote is a big hearty “Fuck you” to the RIAA, the MPAA, software patent holders, and anybody else who thinks they deserve money for controlling information instead of providing services.

§1051 · March 22, 2006 · (No comments) · Tags: , , , ,

← Older entries