Atom Feed
August 21, 2002
MoveOn has a petition Americans can sign online urging our representatives not to allow us to go to war without solid evidence against Iraq and a reasonable hope that a war might lead to good.
Will signing a petition do any good? Well, it’s like to do marginally more good than not signing a petition.
In response to our call for names for the invasion of Iraq, Joe Mahoney writes:
I don’t really like Operation Oedipus. Oedipus is a patricide, not an avenger. Even in Freud’s appropriation, Oedipus is all about dissolution of the patriarchal order (or something like that). I’d vote for Operation Orestes.
I’m less enamored with Operation Oedipus than I was. I’d prefer something like Operation Oedipal Blindness or maybe Operation Oedipal Apocalypse.
Norm Jensen meanwhile suggests Operation Blatant Hypocrisy.
Oliver Travers points us to Fred Langa‘s column at InformationWeek about the new Microsoft EULA. Fred’s reading of the EULA is less paranoid and alarming than the Registers’ that I cited.
AKMA says he disagrees with me. I beg to differ.
At issue are the comments from Ha Jin I ran approvingly:
Chinese is very rich in describing feelings. For sadness there are some words English doesn’t have. So too for taste. … [But] there are some abstract words that Chinese doesn’t have, such as ‘truth,’ ‘identity,’ and ‘solitude.’ Obviously, English is a more speculative language, whereas Chinese is more earthly, closer to things.
AKMA’s beef (well, since we’re both vegetarians, maybe we should switch to a different metaphor, perhaps something spatial) is that he has “little patience” for
the attitude that cultural groups have intellectual or spiritual tendencies that can be read off the vocabulary or syntax of their languages.
In this there are two objections AKMA may be registering: (1) Cultural groups have tendencies; (2) These tendencies are deterministically determined by their language. The “read off” implies the second objection, as if we could look at a language out of context and “read” the intellectual and spiritual tendencies of its people.
AKMA then says that he doesn’t think Ha is so dumb as to believe in #2, a simple and “tedious” linguistic determinism. But neither is experience independent of language. Rather, says AKMA, “I agree that social life, thought, and language are closely related , and that they affect one another.” But, AKMA says, he rejects what Ha says because English speakers do manage to say earthly things and Chinese speakers manage to say speculative things.
It seems to me that this objection is to a third statement that Ha doesn’t make: (3) The intellectual and spiritual tendencies language non-deterministically influences are not tendencies but hard limits. That is, AKMA seems to be taking Ha as saying that if Chinese is a more earthly language than English, then English speakers can’t say earthly things.
I find it unlikely, based on the snippet I originally posted, that Ha is saying that English can’t be earthly and Chinese can’t be speculative. He is talking about tendencies and uses the comparative “more.” So, I think AKMA is attacking a strawperson interpretation of Ha. And I thus am able to agree with AKMA’s subtantial point while disagreeing with his critique of Ha’s statement.
Now, this doesn’t answer a question that seems to jab more squarely at the questions of language and translation: Are there things that can be said in Chinese that simply cannot be said in English, and vice versa? And the answer to this question is one that I again think AKMA and I are likely to agree on: That the question is totally screwed up is betrayed by my sloppy use of the word “things.” In fact, this question is like waving red meat, um, I mean, waving a spatial metaphor in front of a postmodernist.
AKMA‘s got some excellent comments on The Dispute and Alex Golub takes apart and then puts back together Lessig’s rhetoric in a remarkable display of insight. (AKMA has some later comments here.)
My opinion? We need to back Lessig and we need to develop 100 others who approach his passion, intelligence and stamina. His rhetoric at OScon is that of desperation, and we all want Lessig to win the struggle in which he is engaged. (Yes, I am now open to dispute from those who don’t agree 100% with Lessig’s aims. My response: “we” in the prior sentence means “those who want Lessig to win the struggle in which he is engaged.” Try getting out of that one, Mr. Smarty-Pants Communist!)
(By the way, I’ve had the opportunity to spend a litte time with Lessig, and despite Alex’s inference from Lessig’s OScon presentation, Lessig is far from humorless. He’s witty while also fully engaged with the people around him. A delightful person to be in a room with.)
August 20, 2002
[NOTE: I was a humanities major and thus am not
responsible for accurate calculations. Further, I
probably will not understand the corrections you send
me. In fact, you should congratulate me for getting the numbers right up to whatever point I got them wrong.]
I have not been able to find a direct mention
of how many videotapes are rented every year. But:
According
to Blockbuster: “In 2001, an estimated average of
more than 3 million customers walked into U.S. Blockbuster
stores every day.” [source]
Blockbuster has
38% marketshare in the US. [source]
” …consumers still spend more than twice as much renting
movies on videocassette ” [source
]
Irrelevantly
but interestingly: “…consumer spending on the purchase
and rental of DVDs and videocassettes is already up
13.3% to a whopping $8.79 billion in the first half
of the year.” [source]
So, assume that at 80% of the people who walked into
a Blockbusters walked out with a rented videotape
(while the other 20% were there to argue over late
fees or just to enjoy the continental ambiance). That
means 876,000,000 tapes and DVDs were rented from
Blockbuster in 1991. With a 38% share, that means
2,303,880,000 tapes and DVDs were rented that year.
Assume that DVDs and videotapes rent for the same
amount, which means that the ratio of tapes to DVDs
was 2:1. So, 1,535,920,000 tapes were rented and 767,960,000
DVDs.
The FBI warning on videotapes displays for
approximately 30 seconds. Assume that you can fast
forward over it so that it only takes ten seconds.
Since the FBI warning is unnecessary to honest citizens
and is ineffective in thwarting thieves, that means
that last year the FBI stole 4,266,444 hours from
American citizens. Assuming an average (don’t ask
which type of average) salary of $50,000 in the US,
that means the FBI stole $106,661,111.11 in lost productivity
just from videotape viewers. Since DVDs prevent you
from fast forwarding over the warnings, the total
is 6,399,666. hours, worth $159,991,650.00. And, since owners of VCRs and especially DVD players probably represent the higher income brackets, these numbers are undoubtedly low.
As
the Republicans say about taxes, “It’s your money!
” (Actually, the point about taxes is that it’s
our money, but let that slide.) I want it back!
By holding my thumb over the first letter of my JOHO business card, I have obtained the transcript of the recent strategy meeting at Toho Corp.
CEO: Tell me, my loyal subordinates, what our greatest asset is here at Toho.
CFO: It is without doubt Godzilla.
CEO: Most assuredly. And what is Godzilla?
Jr. Mktg VP: It is a 110-foot high dinosaur imbued with the ability to breathe fire.
CEO (smiling indulgently): Foolish one. Anyone else?
CTO (hesitantly): It is an archetype called up by the Japanese in response to the deep guilt, shame and horror of having initiated the Second World War in the Pacific, which ended in holocausts that destroyed two of our cities as surely as the mighty Godzilla would have?
CEO: Not even close. Anyone else? No? I’ll tell you what Godzilla, our greatest asset, is. It started as a movie so poorly made that when the man in the dinosaur suit rampgaged through a city, we didn’t bother painting the inside of cardboard buildings he knocked over. We then ran this character into the ground in a series of movies that progressively lowered the production values and became famous for being so blatantly without originality. Because these movies were so bad, “Godzilla” became branded as standing for cheeziness. He is a monster who exists only as a laughingstock.
VP Mktg: Yes, Godzilla is a brand.
CEO: Yes, but unlike any other, he is a brand-in-itself. Toyota is a brand, but they make cars that are the object of the branding. Sony is a brand but they make electronic equipment. Godzilla is a brand but there is no Godzilla.
Jr. Mktg VP: There isn’t?
CEO: Godzilla is pure brand. And that means he exists only because people remember the movies and continue to refer to him when they need to talk about something large, lumbering and ridiculous.
All: Ah. Very true. So wise.
CEO (intensely, as if in another world): So, here is your challenge. If we are to slay this mighty monster that has ravaged our land, let us today pledge to keep anyone from referring to Godzilla. Where the army has failed, where the navy has failed, let us bring on the lawyers. Together we shall rid the world of this scourge named Godzilla. And then, Toho’s noble mission will have been accomplished.
CFO: I thought our mission was to increase shareholder value …
CEO: Silence, mortal!
The transcript ends with the sound of a single gun shot.
We have much to learn from the post-marketing brilliance of Toho. This farsighted company has understood that the true aim of marketing is to drive all thought and discussion of your product off the face of the earth, especially if your product has no existence outside of what people think and say. Markets are conversations? Then let’s sue everyone into silence! Brilliant!
August 19, 2002
From a mailing list comes a quote from an interview in the spring issue of “Boulevard” (not available online). The interview is with Ha Jin, “a writing professor at Boston University and the winner of an enviable list of awards — including the PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction, the Flannery O’Connor Award for Short Fiction, the Hemingway/PEN Award, and the National Book Award…” (What, no Heissman Trophy?)
Chinese is very rich in describing feelings. For sadness there are some words English doesn’t have. So too for taste. … [But] there are some abstract words that Chinese doesn’t have, such as ‘truth,’ ‘identity,’ and ‘solitude.’ Obviously, English is a more speculative language, whereas Chinese is more earthly, closer to things.
This would sound like an urban myth if it didn’t come from such a durn good source. Amazing how different we can be while still being the same.
August 18, 2002
We fought Operation Desert Storm. We’re fighting Operation Enduring Freedom. What would be an appropriate name for the upcoming war against Iraq?
My choice:
Your own suggestions are welcome.
August 17, 2002
Doc, knowing that nothing brings me as much joy as mocking our “president,” sends us to “The People’s Republic of Seabrook,” featuring the writings of the left-wing Texan. (Doesn’t Molly Ivins count?) Doc discovered it at The Blogging Ecosystem, a useful place for browsing.
Gary Unblinking Stock tells us that mnftiu.cc’s new Get Your War On is out. The strip is proof of the genius of telling the truth.
Brian Dear has started a blog, called Nettle, about design and marketing.
Nollind Whachell has started a blog. His initial entries are dominated by personal thoughts about the promise and peril of the Net’s openness. His professional background is in the gaming industry (Sierra, not Vegas).
Likewise, Mike Melduke has begun blogging, primarily about the financial side of life, such as a comparison of Elvis and the bull market.
Finally, Andrew Hinton has given Small Pieces Loosely Joined an excellent review (in both senses) over at Boxes and Arrows.In the first sense, it’s a long and thoughtful engagement with the ideas in the book. In the second sense, he says things such as “… if you think you’re an architect of anything vaguely Internet-related, you should read this book.” Thank you, Andrew.
And, one-past-finally, Carole Guevin at netdiver.net blogs and recommends Andrew’s review. Carole is also involved with AfterChaos, a new media collective: “Afterchaos is a new concept collaborative lab whose core vision + mission is to explore, theorize and prove new business models to apply to our new media industry.”
Two-past finally, I’ve joined BlogCritics. The site’s looking really good. Now I just have to remember to blog some criticism.
And finally finally, at blogtree I’ve listed RageBoy and Doc as my blog’s parents. Careful readers will observe that the date of my initial blog — see the bottom of this page — predates RB’s. But he has threatened me with an unspecified form of public humiliation if I don’t admit he is my daddy. And it’s certainly true that RB’s holding me up as the posterboy of Not Getting It about weblogs (unmerited though that honor was) spurred me to start blogging seriously…after having watched Doc for years showing what a blog could be. Besides, who wouldn’t be proud to admit that he’s RageBoy’s love child? So, thanks for the years of abuse, RB. I take it as an honor.
Joho the Blog uses WordPress blogging software.
Thank you, WordPress!
