'If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged'.

-Cardinal Richelieu

I believe Cardinal Richelieu hit the proverbial nail on the head with this quote. Privacy isn't something that should only matter to those living 'rightly'; it is something we should ultimately be concerned with to maintain our freedom. We need privacy to prevent the abuse of power from those in authority.

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of 'all-knowing' Google, recently made some rather disconcerting comments regarding Google, privacy, and the government. Here's a few snippets:

'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place'.

'The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it'.

'Young people may one day have to change their names in order to escape their previous online activity'.

I've heard some comment that Google has enough information in its records (email/documents/search history) to destroy every marriage and create war between nations. Once you begin giving this concept some serious thought, it doesn't seem too far from the truth. Google possesses more data than we probably even realize. 

Cell phones are another issue altogether. Every place a user travels is tracked and recorded with the on-board GPS that comes standard on every phone. Even phones that do not appear to have GPS capabilities possess the same ability to track their users. This feature was initially put into phones for use by the 911 system, but its use has been expanded and modified, as can be expected.

Here's an example of how a seemingly harmless information gathering idea can grow into something intrusive and abusive. Most of us have had the experience of using shopper reward cards, the cards we scan to get discounts at our favorite stores. There are currently people who would like the government to regulate the purchase and consumption of non-healthy foods. These cards track everything you purchase, including all of your food choices. The government could take this information and either tax you heavily for its use, or provide the information to insurance companies who would in turn use the data to charge higher rates to consumers who fit a certain profile. 

Free countries should not spy on their citizens. A country that watches every move of its citizenry is not a free country, it is a police state. We cannot sacrifice freedom for liberty, regardless of the facade of protection it seems to afford us. Even when initial intentions are pure, it is impossible to escape the scope creep of having that much power. 

'Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Being connected gives one a sense of power; having the entire collective wealth of the world's information at your fingertips can be intoxicating. However, it makes one wonder if that perhaps someday the power dynamic will shift. Can it be that eventually the power will lie with those who have maintained the most privacy? 

Postscript: If you are interested in further information regarding privacy, I recommend the wonderful lecture given by Steve Rambam at this year's HOPE conference titled 'Privacy Is Dead: Get Over It'. Click here for part one's torrent and here for part two's torrent.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else via Digg, Reddit, or Stumbleupon.

Rather than bestowing endless accolades, I present to you, 'The Evolution of Adam Laclave'.

Earthsuit

Macrosick

Club of The Sons

Download their whole album for free by clicking here.

Charlie Blacksmoke

This is part of Adam's new experimental project. In this piece, he has added vocal soul stylings over the piano composition of Sakamoto. To experience the full impact of this improvisational masterpiece, first listen to about thirty seconds of Sakamoto's original by clicking here.

I don't have much more to add, other than I find it a shame that he hasn't made more of an impact in the musical world. He is surely on par with the musical talent of David Byrne and I can only believe that he is not famous because the world is not ready for such genius.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.

With that said, I just finished reading the delightful memoir of a drug addicted dominatrix by the name of Melissa Febos. I first heard about her book Whip Smart on the tastefully high brow NPR's Fresh Air, and was equally excited when I found out that the author is now a professor at SUNY Purchase College. Why is this exciting? Well, mainly because I'm tired of reading memoirs of people who don't know how to string together a proper sentence. 

Melissa Febos is a strong woman wrought from a strong cloth. She has overcome a lot of trying times in her life, most from her unquenchable curiosity, which I can definitely empathize with. Curiosity can get you in deep and take you much further than you ever intended to go. Febos became addicted to drugs and a dominatrix, basically because she was bored with maintaining a 4.0 average at the university she was attending. 

I personally enjoyed the domination scenes much more than the drug scenes, probably due to my prurient interests in what some consider deviant sexual behavior. I see all human behavior as natural, and see a place for most of it in safe expressions of humanity. Her descriptions of the various requests and desires of her clients were equally parts fascinating and disturbing. The most intriguing part was the way with which the clients perceived their sessions, most as nothing more than therapy or an appointment for massage.

It was in therapy that Febos was able to face the deeper issues that plagued her psyche. My only problem with the entire book was that after a short time, she accepted the therapist's diagnosis without much question. Her therapist saw her participation in the BDSM lifestyle as her desire to feel in control. I don't know her personally, but I got the feeling that all of her issues were simply related to an existential ennui coupled with insatiable curiosity. But, then again, I'm no therapist.

I recommend this book to all those who like to venture beyond the pale of the normal human experience, albeit vicariously. I love to learn about the extremes of the human experience, and this book gave me a front row seat into a world that I'd previously only read about in passing.Whip Smart is an excellent read, well-written and thought provoking in every good way.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.

I love film. I'm not a typical moviegoer, although I appreciate a wide range of movies. I enjoy critical analysis of film and discussions of directors and cinematography. I can talk about movies for hours without showing signs of fatigue. I've considered starting a film blog, writing movie reviews for pay, and/or reviewing lists of 'films you must watch before you die', several times. Film is one of my fascinations in life, even though I admittedly fall asleep on them more than I'd like.

How does feminism relate to film? Over the years we've seen stronger women characters, movie leads, and even more directors rising up in the world of film. I was so happy when Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director for The Hurt Locker. I've been a fan of her work since I first saw Point Break, which I still enjoy when it airs endlessly on Spike. With that said, I've come across a paradigm shifting test that, when applied to movies, shows an obvious bias against women and their role in film (even The Hurt Locker fails).

[Enter Bechdel Test]

The Bechdel Test is a test created and popularized by Alison Bechdel's comic Dykes to Watch Out For. It is a simple test applied to movies that consists of three rules:  

1. Does the movie have at least two named women in it?
2. Do they talk to each other?
3. Do they talk to each other about something other than a man?

I was first introduced to the Bechdel Test from the video below. It has completely blown my mind and changed my perspective on film for the rest of my life.

I'm rather ashamed to say that I've never noticed that the bias against women in movies was this strong. Sure, I knew that there are few women directors and that overall, strong women leads are few and far between. But the Bechdel test doesn't even require that much. It sets the bar extremely low, and yet the vast majority of successful movies fail the test. While I see a lot of posts on Feministing and Feministe (my two favorite feminist blogs) that tend to split hairs when finding things to complain about, the Bechdel Test leaves me speechless.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.

When I was in Chi Alpha, I remember taking part in a religious practice that we called two-by-two, or friendship evangelism. In groups of two, we would target individuals on campus who were sitting alone. We would introduce ourselves, typically asking them to take a survey or answer our question of the day. This was our way of breaking the ice and beginning a dialog about beliefs.

It was basically a modified sales pitch for Christianity. Find a reason to start talking, and then shift the conversation to the person's most intimate beliefs and life struggles. Pretend to be a friend. Many times, we'd even convince the person to attend a service, which was like scoring a goal for Jesus.

The potential problem occurred when we actually gained a convert as a result. A few weeks pass by, and then that person would be introduced to the concept of friendship evangelism. 'Wait. You mean you only talked to me because it's part of the system used to gain new followers in your religion?' It always seemed rather cheap to me, a religious bait and switch.

This article was posted by a friend of mine on facebook. It's about Christians who showed up at the Pride Parade wearing shirts that said 'We're Sorry', a demonstration of their guilt at the mistreatment of gays by the Christian church. Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that the Christian church is trying to take a step in the right direction in treating people as Jesus would.

The gay community's response to the shirts was exactly what the Christians wanted. The honey rather than vinegar sales tactic wins more people than spouting hate and hoping they see their wrongs. In fact, some members of the gay community were moved to tears. But what happens once you gain a convert? 

Here's an imaginary future conversation between an 'I'm Sorry' shirt wearing Christian and a recent gay convert, several weeks after their first meeting:

GAY CONVERT (excited): This is so awesome. The Christians have realized that being gay isn't wrong and that God loves us too. This is awesome. I can finally be gay and Christian.

CHRISTIAN: Well, not so fast. Yes, God loves you. But homosexuality is still wrong. You can't still be gay and Christian. Well, you can have the thoughts, but can't really participate in the actions. That's wrong.

GAY CONVERT(confused): Well, what's the shirts and the new acceptance all about? Is it just another sham?

CHRISTIAN: Well, not really. We're sorry for the 'God Hates Fags' people and we want to show you God's love, but that doesn't change that a sin is a sin is a sin.

GAY CONVERT: So, I still can't be gay and Christian? Why didn't you tell me this in the first place? 

CHRISTIAN: ...

I know that the Christians who are doing this are the best kind of Christians and are well-meaning in their actions. I'm just curious what's going to happen when the gay people they attract start asking questions. Do they really think and believe that getting them saved will solve everything and change their base nature? I imagine the Christian response to be something like this: 'We don't stop shoplifters from shoplifting once they become Christians. We just point them to Christ and let him do that work. We don't try to change liars. We just let God change them'. 

What's the problem with this? Well, it's the fact that on one hand, they're being accepting of the person, but they are still calling them out for being degenerate sinners. You're bringing them in under false pretenses. The gay people don't realize they're not getting the full story.

Aren't we all sinners? This is how it'll be disguised. We all have our issues. Some may be lying, others may be homosexuality. The problem is that the gays want to be accepted for who they are, which is gay. They don't want to become a non-gay version of themselves. 

This isn't true acceptance of the gay community, it's just another bait and switch sales tactic for Christianity. 

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.

Why is it both good and bad? Well, it's good for the obvious reasons. I know what the hell is going on around me. It's bad because it annoys me when I see people not aware of their surroundings in the simplest ways imaginable. The place where I see this most often demonstrated is the mall.

I've seen people walking diagonally, but staring off ninety degrees in another direction, causing people to step out of their wake to avoid being trampled. I've seen people back into other people while holding trays of food. I see so many people that have no clue of what's going around them, it makes me scared to drive on the road. Think about it. Do you think these clueless people who travel in one direction and look off in the opposite do something different when they're driving a car? Doubtful, and quite frightening.

So, next time you're out in public, notice some things. First, become aware of yourself. Second, realize how little other people are aware of their surroundings. Then feel the annoyance rush over you like it does to me. Then feel good about yourself, because once you see this going on, you're probably not one of those people.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.

In the past few months, since the groundbreaking release of James Cameron's Avatar, every movie seems to be getting on to the 3-D bandwagon. Even movies that weren't filmed in 3-D are transferring their films into 3-D post-production. Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, and How to Train Your Dragon are all films that were originally 2-D. I heard just last week that Guillermo del Toro's The Hobbit will be released in 3-D. I think this will be a huge mistake.

I feel like I'm alone when I tell the world that I simply don't get the lure of 3-D film. The way I feel about 3-D film is pretty much the same as I felt when they released the cubist 3-D fighting games in the arcade (Virtua Fighter, anyone?). Give me the realistic Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter any day of the week. Hell, I'd rather play a 2-D scrolling game like Super Mario World than the Picasso-like garbage offered by early 3-D polygon games. 

The technology is not where it needs to be for me to enjoy 3-D film. Sure, Avatar was brilliant in its imagery; however, I don't think it would have been any less brilliant in 2-D. It's the look of the characters and the world that was amazing. I still get annoyed wearing the special glasses (even worse for me since I wear eyeglasses), but I don't think the elimination of the glasses would make a difference for me. Maybe I'm not seeing what everyone else is seeing, but to me, it just doesn't look all that wonderful.

What would it take for me to get on the 3-D bandwagon? I'm not exactly sure, but perhaps when the technology allows full out perfection in holographic images where I feel like I'm in the actual world, perhaps I'll try it again. Until then, I won't be buying overpriced 3-D tickets, nor will I be in line for a brand new 3-D television. I'm not sure what everyone else sees in 3-D, but I don't get it.

The question is 'what's more important?'. Is it more important to apply the principle of appointing a strict Constitutionalist (the ideal, not the party), or to keep balance in the Court? Back in the 1970s and before, the President would select a Supreme Court justice who backed his political opinion. The opposition had little say in the approval process and there was virtually no way for them to block the appointment. Since then, things have changed. Congress now has more power than ever to control the situation. Therefore, the President has to find someone who will appeal to both sides of the aisle, or face a possible shitstorm.

The current situation in Washington is quite complicated. In my opinion, Obama stands slightly left of center. The left is not happy with a lot of what he's doing because it isn't progressive or far enough left. The right doesn't like what he's doing because regardless of what he does, it won't be right. He is responsible for picking a replacement for Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court.

Not a lot is known about Elena Kagan's stances on major issues, and this worries both parties. However, for sake of argument, I will assume that she falls right in line with Obama, slightly left of center. The right has stated that they will approve her, but the conservative media is still up in arms about her being too liberal. The liberals think that she isn't liberal enough. Personally, I believe that she probably isn't liberal enough to replace Justice Stevens. If Obama had any backbone, he would have chosen Cass Sunstein instead of Kagan, but that's another issue altogether.

In theory, the Supreme Court should be a group of nine people who strictly interpret the Constitution and rule on difficult cases passed up from lower courts. They are the final decision makers regarding the law. In practice, the Court is typically divided 4 to 5, with a small liberal or conservative bias. If the President were to choose a centrist to replace Stevens, the court would become overwhelmingly conservative, 6 to 3. In my opinion, the balance of the court outweighs any decision to appoint a Constitutionalist. With the selection of Kagan, he has made a decent, but not perfect choice to preserve the balance of the court. 

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.

The next level of altruistic concern is the individual who has a stake in a cause because of tangential involvement. Greg Grunberg of the hit television show Heroes falls under this category. He has a son with epilepsy. He has created a website called talkaboutit.org to educate the public about epilepsy and chairs a national walk on epilepsy. Honorable, but would he have created this site had he not had a family member inflicted with epilepsy? Doubtful. 

Another group that would fall into this second, tangential concern category, is religious folks. These are people who care for others because of some external impetus. These people are either working because they've been instructed by their religion or its teachings. Their good deeds are either in obedience to teachings or to obtain some end goal (i.e. heaven). Their deeds are noble, but still not at the highest level of altruism.

The highest level of altruistic concern is the individual who has compassion for others and works to help out of genuine selflessness. This could possibly be the bystander who jumps into a frozen pond to save a small child from drowning or the person who rushes into a burning building to save an individual they don't even know. Or perhaps an individual starts a soup kitchen and homeless shelter because they see a need in their city. This type of action is the ultimate case for altruistic concern.

Objectivists and social exchange theory would have us believe that altruism does not exist. I would tend to agree that in the first two levels, it is easy to push aside the altruistic title since the ulterior motivations take away from the positive actions. Obviously, the person who is inflicted with a disease will want to find a cure. Also, those who have an external motivation fall under the same general scope. But what about the third situation? Can we turn their acts into selfishly motivated deeds?

The only possible argument against the third one being altruistic is that possibly the individual improves his own status in society by succeeding in assisting another individual or that perhaps his legacy (in the case of his demise) is positive. His impact on society has been a positive force, thus 'self-seeking'. Does altruism exist? Are all three situations altruistic, or just the third? Should we honor someone for acting in his own self-interest? Can it be noble or is it purely selfish?

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.

No matter how hard we try not to, we still make snap decisions about the people we meet based on appearance. As an individual, we want to look good to impress the opposite sex or those in authority over us. It's nearly universal. As a society, we tend to respect someone in a suit more than a person in blue jeans. For the life of me, I can't figure out why we can't move past this stupidity. 

Naturally, I prefer wearing t-shirts and jeans. Donald Trump has stated that he enjoys wearing suits. In the church, I've noticed a large movement to a more casual atmosphere. Finally, something on which we can turn to the church for guidance. Pastors in some modern congregations are wearing t-shirt and jeans or a polo shirt and jeans, and the entire congregation hasn't left. Amazing. Some people have asserted that workers perform less efficiently on casual Fridays. Have they ever considered that this is probably due more to the novelty and excitement and less to the actual clothes being worn?

Here are my mixed feelings about fashion. I understand fashion (for the most part) and how it works. I know how to dress to impress, how others should dress, what colors go well together, and how outfits work. I could definitely find a career as a stylist if I should so choose. With that said, I struggle with whether or not to 'dress to impress' daily, or wear whatever feels comfortable. I definitely care too much about what people think, of that I'm sure. I've come to a happy medium decision of dressing for comfort, but adding a level of flair that demonstrates my fashion sense. I dress well because I've learned what to wear. Some people do it naturally. Is it important? I'm not sure.

Most people grade a person's level of dress with an air of simplicity. A guy wearing a suit is better dressed than a person in a t-shirt and jeans. It's not that quite simple for me. If a guy is wearing a suit that doesn't fit and dress shoes that were purchased at Wal-Mart, and he stands next to a guy in True Religion Jeans and a D&G t-shirt, who is dressed better? To me, the better quality clothes stands out and makes a better impression. Too bad this isn't the golden standard in the business world.

I've decided there are two requirements I have of a job. I will not wear a tie and I will not maintain a LinkedIn profile. Both of these are formalities I choose not to participate in. This is my own subtle form of rebellion against the man and his so-called social structures. 

My 21 month old daughter has come up with her own method of testing people she meets. She carries her stuffed Elmo with her everywhere she goes. Whenever we introduce her to someone new, she immediately hands over her Elmo to the person. This is her test. The way the person responds to the Elmo reveals to Mila the character of the individual she is meeting. I find this toddler formality fascinating. She has come up with her own test to use as a yardstick of approval. Simple, but effective.

I love fashion. I hate formality. Is there even a difference? What do you think?

I have a dream that my little girl will one day live in a nation where she will not be judged by the clothes that she wears, but by the content of her character. 

If you enjoyed reading this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed or take a minute to share it with someone else.