In the PBS television series Cosmos, Carl Sagan attempted to describe how humans are trapped into the way we think about our three-plus-one-dimensional universe. He used the analogy of a two-dimensional creature, a being who exists only in height and width, and has no concept of depth. Tootie, let’s call her, lives very happily in her two dimensions, gliding gracefully along the X and Y axes, until one day a creature from a three-dimensional world picks her up about a foot above her plane of existence and lets her fall gently back.

Now, Tootie experiences this sensation, but has no mechanism to understand what is happening to her. She experiences falling through the third dimension, but once she’s back safely at home, she can’t point to where she was, she can’t describe it to her friends, and she can’t mentally process her adventure. She is built to understand the world in two dimensions only.

If Tootie’s race of two-dimensional beings is anything like our own, they’ve probably developed storytelling, myth, and philosophy to try to make sense of their existence. While someone from our world could look at a 2D world and explain it easily, Tootie and her kind can only hope to approximate such a description.

I think of this example in relation to our own attempts to make sense of the world. Heinrich Zimmer said, “The best truths cannot be spoken, and the second best are misunderstood.” And, as Joseph Campbell says, the third best are the things we talk about every day – science, sociology, history, and so on. Philosophy, mythology and storytelling try to point the way to that dimension that is beyond our reach and understanding.

Dreams

A couple of items have put me on this track this morning. For one thing, I just finished watching Richard Linklater Waking Life. Linklater’s films are often packed with philosophical musings, and Waking Life is no exception. In fact, this movie reminds me a lot of Linklater’s first film, Slacker, with its meandering style and “real people” casting. The difference in this film is the juxtaposition of objective and subjective camera styles, and the focus on existential themes.

I’m so glad we settled our little tiff with the New York Times, because this link just came to my attention by way of Boing Boing...

Battle of ‘Stupid White Men’ Books

Next week, a tiny Brooklyn-based publisher will bring out “How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office.” The book, a low-budget paperback written by a group of political activists, is not to be confused with “Stupid White Men,” a HarperCollins best seller by the filmmaker and author Michael Moore, which remains in hardcover.

But HarperCollins has been concerned about just that sort of confusion. In November, HarperCollins wrote to the Brooklyn publisher, Soft Skull Press, demanding that the title be changed and stating that the similarities would cause “irreparable damage” to Mr. Moore and his book.

The ironies compound rather quickly at this point, even ignoring that a company built on free and unfettered expression appears to be, by implication, objecting when someone else engages in that.

Yeah. And the irony that the New York Times, which has been at the forefront of several landmark free expression cases, and which just recently threatened to shut down The National Debate for publishing a parody Corrections page, published this article on the same day they withdrew their complaint against said page’s author.

You know, I see stuff like this and I think maybe there’s something to the arguments that people like Lawrence Lessig, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others are making. Perhaps patent and copyright laws are too heavily weighted in favor of big corporations. It certainly seems that the Times and HarperCollins feel free to throw their weight around, which bespeaks a mindset of mark protectionism run amok.

Listen to the reasoning given by HarperCollins.

“We were concerned that there would be confusion, and we brought that to the attention of the publisher and that was the end of it,” the spokeswoman, Lisa Herling, said.

In the HarperCollins’ letter to Soft Skull Press, the publisher said, “Michael Moore has become closely identified with the phrase ‘Stupid White Men’ in the minds of the general public.”

“Accordingly, we demand that you eliminate the phrase ‘Stupid White Men’ from the title of Mr. Wimsatt’s book prior to its publication,” said the letter, from Beth Neelman Silfin, vice president and associate general counsel of HarperCollins. “Please confirm to me, in writing that you will take this important and necessary step to avoid confusion between the two books.”

“Michael Moore has become closely identified with the phrase ‘Stupid White Men’ in the minds of the general public.” What!? I can’t figure out who they’re insulting more – Michael Moore or the general public.

Look, we’re at a real tension point in this country. At a time when we have unprecedented access to information, we also face the biggest threat to the free flow of that information. If big companies can simply buy up all ideas, phrases, and methods, if they are allowed to claim dominion over the intellectual capital of the country, then those of us at the bottom of the food chain will be entirely dependent on those big companies for access, and the Internet Revolution will have been for naught.

Like the argument applied to Open Source software, information should be free as in freedom. We are better and stronger as a nation when our access to venues of communication are kept clear of intimidation and threats. Free expression is not served by the recent actions of HarperCollins and the New York Times.

GROKLAW refers us to this…

... article in CIO magazine on GNU/Linux use in business. It’s called The Myths of Open Source, and one by one it debunks them, by interviewing executives who have made the switch already and are happy with GNU/Linux for their business use.

The myths thoroughly debunked are:

MYTH 1 – THE ATTRACTION IS THE PRICE TAG ( It’s performance improvement.)
MYTH 2 – THE SAVINGS AREN’T REAL (”. . .there’s a zero marginal cost of scale because open source doesn’t require additional licenses as an installation grows.”)
MYTH 3 – THERE’S NO SUPPORT ( ”. . .existing users of open-source software appear perfectly happy with open-source support arrangements.”)
MYTH 4 – IT’S A LEGAL MINEFIELD (If you’re worried, third-party indemnification is an option.)
MYTH 5 – OPEN SOURCE ISN’T FOR MISSION-CRITICAL APPLICATIONS ( Are banks mission-critical enough for you?)
MYTH 6 – OPEN SOURCE ISN’T READY FOR THE DESKTOP (“Siemens, for example, says it has performed extensive testing with ‘real-world, nontechnical workers,’ finally declaring that Linux has now matured as a desktop system. The tests confounded the company’s expectations.”)

The article goes on to talk about the legal angle, and to actually give credit to SCO for several items they contributed to the Linux kernal.

Daniel Orkent, public editor for the Times, has issued a public relentment.

The New York Times: Daniel Okrent (Forum/Message Board) – The Columnists Correction Page Parody and The Times

Readers (and others) upset with The Times for sending a cease-and-desist notice to the creator of a parody “corrections page” aimed at the paper’s Op-Ed columnists can relax.

The following letter—to Robert Cox of http://www.thenationaldebate.com/, who created the page, and to his internet service provider—was sent out by Times lawyers today:

“Thank you for responding to our complaint. By adding the bold-faced disclaimer at the top of the faux Columnist Corrections Page, you are no longer confusing readers and as a result of this change, we agree that the page is now a parody which is protected under the First Amendment. We are copying Verio on this e-mail in order to inform them that we no longer have any objections to your site.

I must admit, I feel a little deflated. I hadn’t realized that there was a version of the parody page that had been posted without the bold-faced disclaimer. My first exposure to the page had been on the German mirror site, where the bold disclaimer had been added, along with the word “Not” in front of the Times logo. I can see better now why the Times might have been upset, yet I still maintain that the page could have been nothing but parody even without that disclaimer. As the Falwell v. Hustler case showed, you don’t have to stamp the word “Parody” in big bold type at the top of the page. Mr. Cox’s original text at the bottom of the page would probably have held up in court.

However, the Times has withdrawn its legal action, so we here at Stumax.com withdraw our protest.

The faux Corrections page will remain available, however. As I wrote to the Times just now on hearing of this latest statement, I stand by my call for the paper to urgently consider changes to its editorial policy with regard to columnists, as I outlined in my previous post on the topic. It is vital that we be able to trust the word of the nation’s paper of record.

I am still upset that the Times would resort to threatening legal actions by using provisions of the DMCA. However, I don’t know the whole story, and it seems like everyone’s happy… for now.

Oh, poop. And I was all up for a fight. Guess I’ll just have to beat my cat.

An update on the New York Times Columnist Correction Policy Project

THE NATIONAL DEBATE TO NEW YORK TIMES: BRING IT ON

Ronald D. Coleman of The Coleman Law Firm, an attorney specializing in the law of trademarks and the Internet, has agreed to represent The National Debate in TND’s ongoing legal battle with The New York Times. Mr. Coleman is an experienced attorney who has been appointed to the Online Trademark Use Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association Internet Committee beginning in 2004.

Mr. Coleman’s reply to the Times is a beautifully written and reasoned response… well worth a read, and I’ve mirrored the PDF here.

Thanks to Mr. Coleman for his words and energies. Here’s hoping the Times is wise enough to see the folly of its ways.

Hit & Run: Lying About Drugs OK, Says GAO

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) wonders, to the General Accounting Office (GAO), whether it’s OK that the Office of National Drug Control Policy uses taxpayer money to spread lies about drug use in order to influence state elections. GAO says, sure.

Short background: In November of 2002, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) sent a letter to all local prosecutors in the United States. The letter contained certain statements about marijuana use that were claimed by the ONDCP to be “truth,” but several of which are false or at least seriously disputed by reputable thinkers on the subject. Unfortunately, the statistics in the ONDCP’s letter are not sourced, but you can read one response to the points raised in the letter here.

So, about a year ago, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) send a letter to the GAO asking that they investigate the actions of the ONDCP in sending this letter in relation to whether the agency “violated the ban on using federal funds for ‘publicity or propaganda.’” The GAO responded (PDF) with a six-page letter that said, in short, that the ONDCP is basically just fulfilling its mandate to rid the country of drugs, and if lies happen to be a part of that, that’s not something the GAO can do anything about.

So it seems to me that all the GAO is saying is that they can’t stop the ONDCP from doing what its doing based on any violation of GAO policies. (Though I do wonder why lying isn’t against GAO policy… perhaps because the GAO shouldn’t be in the position of making that call?) The GAO response points to the ONDCP’s “statutory role,” which is to oppose efforts to legalize marijuana. So, if you read between the lines, the GAO is saying that Congress is going to have to be the one to squelch the ONDCP. Which means that some Congressperson is going to have to actually take a stand against drug prohibition. Any wagers on when that’ll happen? (We’ve stopped accepting bets on “When Hell Freezes Over.”)

What this points out, then, is that the ONDCP isn’t a neutral body (big duh) but a propaganda office (big duh). Rather than okaying lying, the GAO has only pointed out the innate, federally mandated hypocrisy of the drug policy.

Lying to enforce policy isn’t okay, but an even bigger problem is that we never engaged in sufficient debate or study before adopting this drug policy, and in fact the kind of research that might enlighten us on the real dangers of drugs, if any, has been directly hampered by US drug policy (see here, for example).

I’m looking forward to seeing this kind of debate shape up – how do we make sure that government agencies are as value-neutral as possible? Or should they even attempt to be?

You know Richard Hoagland, right? He’s the guy that claims that there is or was life on Mars, as evidenced by things like the Face on Mars. He also says that NASA is covering up the truth about this and other so-called evidence.

Well, watch out, Richard Hoagland, because now the real scientists are striking back. Space.com gave us this article about myth-debunker Philip Plait, who’s giving Hoagland the intellectual spanking he so richly deserves.

War of the Words: Scientist Attacks Alien Claims

Plait has two words for the latest claims of alien objects on Mars. The first is “garbage.” The second and more scientific word is “pareidolia.” This is the same phenomenon that makes us see animals or other familiar objects in clouds.

“It’s pretty common,” Plait said of pareidolia. “Just a few months ago, a water spot on my shower curtain took on the uncanny form of the face of Vladimir Lenin.” Plait took a picture of the liquid Lenin and uses it illustrate his contention that, though objects on the surface of Mars can sometimes take on interesting shapes, they are just a bunch of rocks.

“Hoagland’s claims irritate me because he is promoting uncritical thinking,” Plait told SPACE.com . “He doesn’t want you to think about what you’re seeing. He’s trying to bamboozle you into believing what he’s saying.”

Critical thinking is the foundation of science, but Plait thinks it’s also an important skill for anyone trying to navigate modern society. “Hoagland is eroding away at that ability.”

Oh, yeah! Critical thinking. I’d totally forgotten about that.

In the age of instant access to information, it should be relatively easy to check the validity of claims like the ones Hoagland makes. The problem is the desperate lack of critical thinking education. This is something I’ve talked about writing more about on this blog, and I fully intend to. In the meantime… You go, Plait!

By way of Brad DeLong we find this…

Center for American Progress – In Their Own Words: Iraq’s ‘Imminent’ Threat

The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an “imminent” threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq’s WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying “Some in the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent’. Those were not words we used.” But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase “imminent threat” – while also using the synonymous phrases “mortal threat,” “urgent threat,” “immediate threat”, “serious and mounting threat”, “unique threat,” and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to “strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction” – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was “contained” and “threatens not the United States.

I’m a little annoyed that the site is long on quotes and short on actual sources. I tried to track down a couple of the quotes and I could only find them repeated on blogs. I’d like to believe this is true. I’ll send them an email and see if they can’t come up with some sources for these. I’ll let you know what happens.

Just watch the last 30 minutes of Hi Fidelity on Bravo. What a great movie. I first saw it in London, a really late-night showing at a movie theatre just off of Piccadilly Circus. When I got out of the theatre, it was ass-early in the am. I found a bus going back towards my hotel. After about 10 minutes the bus driver pulled the bus over, turned off the lights and got out and – I presume – went home to bed. Fortunately for me, we were just a couple of blocks from my hotel.

Anyway…

Hi Fidelity. John Cusack (has he ever made a bad movie?), Jack Black (who does a kick-ass rendition of Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get it On”), Tim Robbins (playing a prig with a long gray ponytail), from the book by Nick Hornby. It’s hard to make a really good movie from a really good book, but Cusack et al did a fabulous job with it. Ladies, if you want to get some clue about a man’s journey in life, Hi Fidelity is a good place to start.

After I got home from my trip to England, I picked up Hornby’s novel and couldn’t put it down. Because someone had squirted Super Glue all over the cover of the book. Ha ha.

No, seriously folks, the book is one of my favorites. Hornby’s a really raw, visceral, yet totally accessible writer. Reading Hi Fidelity was like a super-slo-mo punch in the gut, with tender kisses to ease the pain.

Literally within minutes of finishing that book I was in the car heading to the book store to pick up his next novel, About a Boy. This one was even better. It was so good, in fact, that I couldn’t read it. It was too painful, too close to my own recent experience for me to be detached. I’d like to spend some time with it again soon, perhaps see if I can make it through.

AMCGLTD, one of the mirror sites for the New York Times Columnist Correction Policy Project has a nice take on what’s happening…

AMCGLTD: Blogosphere to New York Times: DROP DEAD

The parallels between this event and those surrounding one Martin Luther are quite striking. Then, as now, a single individual posted a set of grievances against a powerful institution claiming rights to “the truth” in a public place. Then, as now, that institution used its size, power, and wealth in an attempt to muzzle this voice and destroy all evidence of the complaints. Then, as now, a new technology allowed copies of those complaints to be spread across the world literally faster than they could be destroyed (scattered on the wind like so many dandelion seeds).

Didn’t the Times learn anything from the Diebold debacle? After all, they wrote a column about it.