January 30, 2015

British actor Benedict Cumberpatch had to utter a batch of mea culpas after saying Hollywood had a problem not casting enough "colored actors" in its movies:

Cumberpatch Apologizes for 'Colored Actors' Remark

If aliens from another planet deciphered our language they would wonder why it would make any difference where the adjectival modifier is placed: "people of color" or "colored people." It's a ridiculous semantic difference but the weight of connotation from historical usage hangs heavily over the latter but not the former. But, as someone from Britain, we cannot expect Cumberpatch to know every nuance and underlying connotative meaning behind a phrase that would seem innocuous to him. The incident says more about the people who are self-righteously lambasting Cumberpatch than it says anything about him (and the poor guy felt obliged to apologize profusely afterwards). Ironically the Americans calling him out for supposed insensitivity and racism actually revealed themselves to be culturally and globally ignorant. Do they really expect and believe that the connotative meaning of every English language phrase is the same around the world? They are the ethnocentric ones, not Cumberpatch. Their ignorance of language and its nuances is embarrassing (for them). These ignorants need to get a clue and buy a book like this:

English to English: The A to Z of British-American Translations

Cheers...

January 27, 2015

Wikipedia Should Not Depict Prophet Muhammad (but not for the reason you think)

Interesting article on Gawker about the background, history and tussle over the depiction of Prophet Muhammad in the Wikipedia entry:

Should Wikipedia Depict Muhammad?

Most of the debate has posited free speech versus sensitivity to religious teachings (particularly of the other), but there is a third way (most debates are not the false binary presented by politicians and media). Newspapers, journalistic organizations, universities, encyclopedias, history books, etc. all strive to present facts. A fact is something that is verifiably true. If it cannot be proven true, then it should not be presented as true. Yet, these same fact-reporting entities use illustrations, paintings and other artistic representations as a placeholder for an unknowable truth. One obvious example is the blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus that has been portrayed as such in countless media representations through the centuries. But let's move away from depictions of religious figures for the moment to a momentous historical one.

Christopher Columbus is one of the most well-known figures of history, yet we have no idea how he truly appeared. The paintings we see of him in books and news media were made after his death. If you check history textbooks in Spain, he appears in illustration as a Spanish caballero, and in Italy as a Genoan noble. The truth is absolutely nobody knows what he truly looked like, yet his image is ostensibly and tacitly posted as fact such as Wikipedia, history texts, newspapers, etc. (Not only do we not know what Columbus looked like, we do not even know if he was Italian, or really much of his life. Most of the myth of Columbus was fabricated by the American author Washington Irving in the 19th century to sell his books). It would be fine to put these images into entries and discussions of artistic representation of historic figures, but it is wholly inaccurate to put them into any document that purports to be truth. And that is why Wikipedia and other media organizations that purportedly pursue truth should not publish images of Muhammad or any religious/historical figure for which we have no accurate visual depiction. To do otherwise is simply wrong (not necessarily in the ethical or moral sense, but in the sense of simply being flat-out wrong).

January 25, 2015

Private Figures Should Keep Their Good Reputation Until Conviction

As mentioned here at McCarthyism.com a few days ago about the theatrics of the SOTU, here's another prime example:

Sulkowicz Let Down by Obama Speech

New York Senator Kristen Gillenbrand invited as her guest Emma Sulkowicz who has gained fame as a performance artist carrying her mattress around Columbia University in New York City to bring awareness to the issue of campus sexual violence. The article is also a good example of how being able to talk back using the comments section is an interesting way to see a newstory through other people's eyes (whether you agree or not with their viewpoints). The premise of bringing Sulkowicz to the SOTU to raise awareness seemed to fail as most people in Congress and government did not know who she was or why she had gained a certain degree of fame. Sulkowicz was disappointed that Obama did not call attention to campus sexual assaults, but really it would be impossible for the President to speak on every serious issue facing the country/world within the short of amount of time alloted for the speech (and shorter attention spans of the public). That is not to downplay the issue of campus sexual assaults, but only to say there are probably other issues that grab the attention of everyone in the country such as jobs, war, health care and the economy.

But what is most worrisome about Sulkowicz's case is the accompanying theatrics itself. When a woman makes a charge of being raped, her identity is shielded by the media unless she publicizes it herself, as Sulkowicz did. That's fine. The problem is the guy she accused of raping her has had his name splashed all over the media even after he was exonerated by the police. To be accused of rape or sexual assault is one of the most harmful statements to a person's reputation. It should be a law that people suspected of a crime should not have their reputations destroyed before receiving due process. Sulkowicz's continuing to accuse a classmate of rape after his exoneration (which means there was not enough evidence for an indictment, but does not mean she is necessarily lying either) is libelous; but it is the media's fault in printing his name in the first place. The law should be that printing a suspect's name before a conviction (even under indictment) should be illegal with stiff monetary penalties for publishing the person's name. The infamous perpetrator walks done by police for the media cameras should also be illegal; they harken back to the barbaric time of locking people in stocks for public embarrassment. If people are truly innocent until proven guilty, then grant them the dignity of privacy and reputation until they are convicted by a court of law; the current system is a sham and a shame of justice.

January 24, 2015

Four Years for "ISIS Bride" Is Harsh Sentence

An incredibly misguided Colorado woman got a four year prison sentence for wanting to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and intending to be a bride for one its soldiers.

Four Years for Wanting to Join ISIS

This sentence is wrong-headed on many levels (and, yes, she will probably not serve the full four years, but even one year is too harsh for this case).

First, any time a government incarcerates a human being then that government is committing a violent act itself. It is unnatural to cage a human being, and should be used only in cases to protect society from future harm (i.e. violent offenders or the criminally insane). This woman committed no act herself, she just intended to join ISIS and had been in the process to do so. Yes, she probably would have done it if the FBI did not stop her at the airport, and, yes, the FBI probably saved her life. The right thing was done by stopping her, and afterwards she has fully cooperated with federal authorities by providing information on her contacts and offering to testify against them. And for this, she received four years in prison? That is not justice. In fact, it will only encourage others not to cooperate with law enforcement in the future. It is the same with John Walker Lindh ("("the American Taliban"), who is serving a long sentence with no reprieve even after fully cooperating with authorities. He also never fought the US government or military (when he joined the Taliban, the US was at peace with the Taliban and even had talks with their representatives).

Second, imprisoning people is incredibly expensive. Taxpayers are on the hook every time a person is put into prison. The US has over 1% of its population in prison (by far, the highest proportion on the planet), and it is a huge money pit that could be spent on other priorities within the country. This case is just another example of this extreme waste of money, but people don't say anything or care about it. Deflated footballs get the attention, while the government flushes your money away. Make this woman do community service or garnish her wages as punishment, that would be more civilized, just and effectual.

Stop throwing people into prison for non-violent crimes (particularly first offenders) and wasting taxpayer money.

January 23, 2015

On Reduced Tuition at Community Colleges

One of the proposals in the State of the Union was to reduce tuition costs for students going to US community colleges. The Associate's degree has become the key for many Americans who want to learn a skill or obtain a certificate to get a better job, or just a job, period. Community colleges also serve as the gateway for students who perhaps were not as academically prepared in high school to get a higher education footing before transferring to a four-year institution. I don't think many people would understate the importance of community college to society for job preparation and upward mobility for many Americans. Therefore it sounds reasonable to make the tuition costs more affordable for current and prospective students... but there is a trap within this seemingly noble plan.

When the government (local/state/federal) provides more financial aid to students, then higher education institutions increase tuition. The more the beast gets fed, the more hungry the beast becomes for more money. It has become a never-ending cycle that has led to higher education tuition increases far out-stripping inflation or any rational measure (this is even moreso at 4-year schools than 2-year ones). The sad fact is most of the additional revenue has not gone to classrooms, but instead to bloated and useless administrators/staff. Over 70% of instructors at community colleges are part-time adjuncts, which means they are not able to form close relationships with the institution or its students. This is compounded by the fact that community college students are the type who need the most assistance and would benefit from it. Unfortunately accrediting boards are cowards, and don't call the community colleges 'leadership' on this disservice to students. Accreditors are only interested in seeing mounds of paperwork with dotted "i's" and crossed "t's" as well as a check that is ready to be cashed. It should not be too much to ask for no more than 40% of a community college's instructors be part-timers, and even that percentage is too high. Imagine if your high school teachers were part-timers shuttling around from institution to institution to teach classes. A good school primarily needs three things: good teachers, good students, and good resources (labs, software, books, etc.). The administrators themselves are, for the most part, superfluous, but they draw the largest salaries for contributing almost nothing in most cases, and they love the sound of more government flowing in so they can keep raising tuition without providing additional value. Students should protest this as it is their hard-earned money being spent for tuition and then wasted at these institutions. And if it's financial aid being wasted, then it's still your money derived from sales and income taxes. Unfortunately, we live in a culture dominated by apathy and despair, so even with money on the line, no one questions how their invested money gets spent.

January 22, 2015

Puerile Theatrics of the State of the Union Address

Are the theatrics of calling out to special guests in the balcony something the American people really want? It's childish so it's hard to imagine a nation of adults could take it seriously... yet there it is year after year: a show spectacle a la Broadway of staged events that are meant to be perceived as smoothly spontaneous. Why can't the state of the union be an intelligent and sober recounting by the chief executive of the state of the nation with his/her prescriptions for the year? Part of the problem is that the US has no royalty to perform ceremonial functions of state, so the President has to take part in meaningless rituals such as staging White House Easter egg hunts and pardoning of turkeys at Thanksgiving. There needs to be a separation of the theater of the White House from the hard business of day-to-day governing and policy-making. The State of the Union has become another proverbial tree-lighting ceremony without real substance.

The Republican "response" was hardly any better. In fact, it's hardly a response at all, it's a pre-scripted (i.e. written before the President's address) speech that offered no riposte to POTUS, but instead offered the opposition party's policy papers. Why can't we have a serious debate? Why does it have to be so puerile with petty bickering? Why can't some of these politicians act and speak like adults? The US Republic is "led" by substandard actors reading from scripts that pander to a public that is apathetic, ignorant and too often beholden to imagined spectacles on their view-screens.

When will there be an adult in the house?

January 21, 2015

Paris Mayor Suing Fox News is a No-Go

Unlike Governor Jindal from yesterday's article, Fox News did not double down on an obvious error. Fox actually apologized for the 'no-go' zone misinformation, but that is not enough for the mayor of Paris, who plans to sue Fox:

Paris Mayor Plans to Sue Fox News for 'No-Go' Zone

As the NYT article states, this lawsuit will go nowhere in the US due to the precedent of New York Times vs. Sullivan. But could the mayor sue in France? Presumably yes, thus putting Fox News parent company assets at risk within France and/or the EU. Perhaps this is why Fox News took the unusual move (for a media company) of repeatedly apologizing for the repeated errors. In any case, Fox has apologized for its errors, and it should end there. We should praise individuals, companies and organizations when they admit fault, and not sue them. Instead of suing Fox, perhaps the mayor should sue Governor Jindal? He's liable to triple down at this point because it's an unfortunate part of our human nature to refuse to admit when we are wrong.

January 20, 2015

Jindal Impervious to Facts and Truth

Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, is the perfect example of a politician unfit for office at any level anywhere.

Jindal Doubles Down on 'No-Go' Zone Ridiculousness

Making an error is human. McCarthyism.com deplores gotcha 'journalism' that catches someone saying something wrong, silly, or foolish in front of an open microphone, and then repeating it ad nauseum to destroy someone's reputation. But what Jindal did was different.

He restated the already previously discredited statement that there are areas of the UK and France that are 'no-go' zones for non-Muslims because they have become Islamic shariah code areas. For anyone who has been to the UK or France, this statement is completely preposterous. People may not go to these neighborhoods because they are high-crime areas, but there is no shariah code being publicly enforced to keep out non-Muslims or making the neighborhood dangerous for non-Muslims. You might get mugged, but no one is going force a woman to wear a veil walking down the street. Jindal not only repeated this ridiculous statement, but even after having it pointed out to him that it was wrong, he doubled down on it. A responsible person would admit error, and restate their position. Jindal is not a mature, rational person, and therefore nobody should ever even think to vote for him. You don't like his opponent, then vote for a third party or McCarthyism.com.

20th century New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts." Jindal evidently never got that message, and that is what this site is all about. Someone like Jindal with such faulty thinking is an embarrassment as a leader. Doesn't matter if you're Republican, Democrat, or whatever, you have to use facts when forming your opinions or viewpoints.