Review of article by reformed futurist

The article is in January 2012 Smithsonian Magazine online

What Turned Jaron Lanier Against the Web?

The digital pioneer and visionary behind virtual reality has turned against the very culture he helped create

You may want to read the article linked above first.  Excerpts follow in the voice of the Smithsonian writer who quoted Lanier, with my comments in italics.
------------

The article begins:

The digital pioneer and visionary behind virtual reality has turned against the very culture he helped create

Lanier is still in the game in part because virtual reality has become, virtually, reality these days. “If you look out the window,” he says pointing to the traffic flowing around Union Square, “there’s no vehicle that wasn’t designed in a virtual-reality system first. And every vehicle of every kind built—plane, train—is first put in a virtual-reality machine and people experience driving it [as if it were real] first.”

Yes, he's right about the ubiquity.  Virtual reality models for homes, factories and even aircraft carriers save billions of dollars by allowing corrections to be made in designs before they are realized the hard way.  If we had this technology a hundred years ago the word "Titanic" would still mean gigantic and nothing more. 

For instance, he said, “I’d been an early advocate of making information free,” the mantra of the movement that said it was OK to steal, pirate and download the creative works of musicians, writers and other artists. It’s all just “information,” just 1’s and 0’s.

O.K. He became famous in his explosive but narrow specialty without a rudimentary appreciation of intellectual property, and now that he has discovered it, because of his notoriety, he is able to present it as a profound innovative discovery. Now to the subject that got me to read this article

His explanation of the way Google translator works, for instance, is a graphic example of how a giant just takes (or “appropriates without compensation”) and monetizes the work of the crowd. “One of the magic services that’s available in our age is that you can upload a passage in English to your computer from Google and you get back the Spanish translation. And there’s two ways to think about that. The most common way is that there’s some magic artificial intelligence in the sky or in the cloud or something that knows how to translate, and what a wonderful thing that this is available for free.

“But there’s another way to look at it, which is the technically true way: You gather a ton of information from real live translators who have translated phrases, just an enormous body, and then when your example comes in, you search through that to find similar passages and you create a collage of previous translations.”

“So it’s a huge, brute-force operation?” “It’s huge but very much like Facebook, it’s selling people [their advertiser-targetable personal identities, buying habits, etc.] back to themselves. [With translation] you’re producing this result that looks magical but in the meantime, the original translators aren’t paid for their work—their work was just appropriated. So by taking value off the books, you’re actually shrinking the economy.”

With his new realization of the legitimacy of intellectual property, and the trade offs between its protection and its use for wider cultural advancement, he sees the Google translation method as an example of the stealing that he had advocated before he saw the light.  The translation procedure that he describes is making use of previous translations, and to the degree that they are identifiable, and are in copyright, he could have case that such use should be compensated. 

Yet, from the article linked above there are many translations in the public domain that do not cause the "theft" he describes, " In 2005, Google improved its internal translation capabilities by using approximately 200 billion words from United Nations materials to train their system; translation accuracy improved.[4]"

The way superfast computing has led to the nanosecond hedge-fund-trading stock markets? The “Flash Crash,” the “London Whale” and even the Great Recession of 2008?

This statement by Lanier shows that there is still a cultish tone to his views, as his early vision of computer connectivity being the new utopia has been transformed to their now being the root cause of all the evils that they facilitate.  This is too simplistic for an acclaimed thinker, as every advance in communication, from the printing press to the telegraph, has been put to the most pernicious uses.  

The excesses of gaming the stock market with superfast computers is not a technological problem but a political-cultural one.  This could be outlawed easily by enforceable legislation. Lanier's blaming this on technology, is not only incorrect it gets political leaders off the hook for allowing real social harm because of campaign contributions by those who subvert market principles. 

As for his larger issue of the evil of this technology, it is a universal phenomenon. The invention of mass printing, while spreading enlightenment insights, also allowed the most vitriolic propaganda that fomented revolutions-for better or for worse-a phrase not used here to be dismissive.  

Lanier because he was enchanted by this new technology, is now disenchanted with the same over broad strokes.  The advantages of accessible rapid, even realtime translation, unlike the utopian dreams of his early associates, is truly achievable.  It reverses the barriers of disparate languages that God Almighty himself inflicted on those who dared to build a tower to reach the heights where only he resided.  Such human arrogance, such achievements unthinkable in my own childhood, such breaking-- not only of barriers but of the comfort of isolated cultures-- understandably elicits extreme responses. 

Jaron Lanier, in spite of my criticisms,  has extended an important conversation that should engage us all for the next few centuries 

Secularism and Religion

The comment below was posted on this New York Times Article by Stanley Fish,  Religious Exemptions and the Liberal State

Let me offer an analytic framing that may be useful to this important subject. "Religious exceptional from in liberal state is a way for it to outsource oppressive enforcement of common social mores.." It is a domestic sanctified protected version of extraordinary rendition, where a sanctioned group is given a name, "religion" and under this may indoctrinate children into their belief system that must include a certain reverence for the national ideal.

Once under this banner, the outsourced oppressors are free to first instill a fear in children of eternal suffering, and then inculcate an elaborate set of rules to avoid this. This threat of eternal suffering that will follow apostasy, is why the outsourcing is required. The principles of the given religion, which always includes obedience to the leadership of the sacred group to protect its very existence, will always be supportive enough of the principles of the secular authority to not to breach the tacit mutual aid pact.

In the last election, the Republican candidate was more blatant in demonstrating this, as in a major speech he attempted to make the secular sacred, in deconstructing the Pledge of Allegiance into a personal and national prayer.

I explored this in an article on Dailykos. com during the presidential campaign, that I revise here.  While this election is over, what this speech by a man who came close to selecting those who will interpret our Constitution  makes this speech illustrative of what our country could face in the future.

-------------------------
9/20/2012

I started to write this article before before the video defaming the Prophet of Allah unleashed homicidal fury among some Muslims, yet I saw clearly the danger of what was being sowed by Candidate Romney. I envisioned his promoting a mindset that would justify similar hatred in this country against those who do not espouse the dominant religious views.

Romney has a law degree from Harvard, and must be aware of the Jurisprudence of the Pledge of Allegiance that he so blatantly ignores in detail and in spirit. His latest action is described in this N.Y. Times article, In Romney’s Hands, Pledge of Allegiance Is Framework for Criticism.

While we fear that the revolution of the Arab Spring could be the opening for Muslim Fundamentalists, we ignore the overt perversion of our own country's tradition of secularism that is unabashedly a strategy of the Romney-Ryan ticket. From the Times article:

But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama.

“The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. ”

He speaks of the "promises that were made in that pledge" as if it were a solemn personal obligation that binds each American who says the words, emphasizing "Under God." Thus the elementary school children who are cajoled under fear of social ostracism to recite words, the meaning of which they could not comprehend, are bound to their oath of fealty to God.

Make no mistake, this is not a theological issue, as I do not believe that Mitt Romney is a Christian Fundamentalist who actually believes we are God's chosen country, that we alone were "endowed by our Creator" and other extensions of this biblical based American Exceptionalism. No, I believe that this is the most crass example of Realpolitik as played by a man with great ambition that knows no moral limits.

I happened to have studied quite a bit of this narrow area of constitutional law, having had extensive correspondence with Michael Newdow, who argued his case against the the Pledge in front of the Supreme Court, having prevailed at the appeals court level. Far from it being a meaningful personal pledge that Romney so passionately argued at that outing and on other occasions, such use of the word God is only given a constitutional pass by being relegated to "ceremonial deism" as described in this essay from the Pew Foundation:

Justice William Brennan wrote that while he thought this particular Christmas display was unconstitutional, less controversial expressions of religion might be permissible under the Establishment Clause. Citing Dean Rostow, Brennan argued that certain official references to a deity - such as the inclusion of God in the Pledge of Allegiance - might be constitutional "as a form [of] 'ceremonial deism.' " According to Brennan, these expressions might not violate the Establishment Clause "because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

 In other words, far from being a personal oath, they have through repeated usage become simply meaningless words. Romney goes on to expand on a national theocratic ethos that approaches that of the Muslim Brotherhood, or worse. He continued:

“ I will not take ‘God’ off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation bestowed by God.”

 Interesting concept "Nation Bestowed by God" that deserves some serious exegeses, a word usually reserved for biblical analysis. This goes beyond the Christian Dominionist's argument that the Declaration of Independence words "We are endowed by our creator...." mean we alone have this endowment. ignoring the clear context that these are qualities that are universals to all people. "Bestow" is a transitive verb meaning that this country was the object bestowed..... on humanity or the world. Romney doesn't say. This is Mitt Romney's own coinage, as the phrase does not show up on a search of the Internet and has no provenance in any historical or academic source.

There are those who think that atheists have a perverse compulsion to deny individuals of their faith, their religious beliefs that sustain and comfort them. It is often said to me, why do I make a big deal out of children being compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance or whether there is a Christian cross on public land....why not just let things be for the sake of comity. The answer is demonstrated in the campaign we are now seeing, where religion and patriotism are being merged with the goal of making non believers or those who worship a different god, into outcasts.

Under a President Romney, it is probable that we would lose the single vote that defeated both the Supreme Court decision and the Constitutional amendment that would have made the desecration of a tri-colored cloth of a certain design a criminal offense in America, similar to what is now the law for the destruction of a page of the Koran among Muslims.

Mitt Romney fully understands the unifying value of fostering hatred of outsiders mediated by religious fervor; and by all evidence, he is unconcerned with the disastrous consequences that this could bring, to our country and the world.

Addendum 12/25/2012:

While Romney is receding rapidly into a footnote of history, what he espoused described here was never condemned by the American public or the opposition.  We came close in 2012 to a move a bit towards theocracy, or more accurately, our peculiar privatized outsourced version.  And because of the special place of religion in our culture, it was generally off limits to call it what it was, a danger to the very enlightenment roots of our nation.

Link to video of speech

Fiscal Warfare, What Would Lincoln Do

"Lincoln, the film" is on track to run the table for this years Academy Awards.  My interest is that one particular individual sees it, and perhaps sits through it for several showings.  And then, he is motivated to explore what it means to be President of the United States, looking at others who have held this position across the political landscape, from Andrew Jackson, Franklyn Roosevelt, Harry Truman and back to Thomas Jefferson.

What these men have in common is certainly not political philosophy, party identity or background.  Yet, they all understood and embraced the Presidency of the United States as more than what is adumbrated in Article two of the Constitution.  They all understood in their own way that the position not only allows, but requires, taking steps that transcended the constitutional limits of their office.  It was this understanding of the presidency, not as the highest ranking bureaucrat, but as wearer of the mantle reserved to those charged with the ultimate defense of the nation that elected them to the office.

Before proceeding let me say that I supported Obama in the recent election, not uncritically, but as the best choice of the options available.  I have also refuted, even at the loss of a long time friendship, those who personally demeaned or imputed nefarious hidden goals to him.  Yet, at this time I see a need to direct that same passion I expressed in his defense to rouse his supporters to reverse a grave error that is about to be made.

President Barack Obama has formally stated this month that if  the House of Representatives blocks a bill to increase the debt ceiling that will be reached in the next few weeks, that he will discontinue disbursements for the multitude of programs and projects funded by the federal government by about a third.  What is ironic, is that there is expert legal opinion that argues that he is not required to do this, that he has the right to continue to pay the obligations authorized by law.

There is a disconnect in the analysis of this pending standoff that demands correction.  It is widely depicted as radical conservatives, "tea party loyalists,"  who are in opposition to the reasonable left of center President.   Unfortunately, this does not provide the most meaningful perspective of what is occurring,  as indicated by its ineffectiveness in preventing the slow motion train wreck that we are watching as helpless bystanders.

The more useful analysis is that of an internal rebellion, not unlike what occurred at Fort Sumter a century and half ago, but this time not being met with all appropriate force, but with a verbal tongue lashing.  Ignoring the debt ceiling is not denying the House of its constitutional  "power of the purse strings" as every reduction can be made prospectively in a budget that they initiate.   It is sad for me to say that Barack Obama, in ruling out challenging the validity of the boycott by the Republican House, is acting as the constitutional law professor,which is quite different than the position to which he was elected.

His disagreement with scholars who conclude that the 14th Amendment gives him the legal right to ignore the debt limit is irrelevant.  Jefferson's summary purchase of the Louisiana Territory was not authorized by the constitution.  He knew it, yet he also knew his actual charge as President, so he signed the contract, and his contemporaries understanding this deeper meaning of the position he held, never even contested his action.

Throughout our history, for reasons both noble and debased, Presidents have transcended the limits of their nominal power.  After Jefferson,  there was Jackson, who in an action now condemned ignored the ruling of the Supreme court with the words, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it"  Jumping ahead, in an action now lauded by historians Wikipedia describes, "...as the defeat of France loomed, President Roosevelt bypassed the Neutrality Act by declaring as "surplus" many millions of rounds of American ammunition and obsolescent small arms, and authorizing their shipment to the United Kingdom."

I'm old enough to remember when Harry Truman went against his own political constituency to nationalize the steel industry to end a strike in 1952.  His advisors certainly told him that it was probably unconstitutional, as it was, being overruled by a 6 to 3 decision by the Supreme Court; but this did not deter him for a minute. We were at war in Korea, and steel was a vital commodity;  so he acted in the nations interest as he saw it.  His reading of history told him that doing any less would be an abrogation of his responsibilities.

What Truman, the history book devouring high school graduate knew that Obama, the Constitutional scholar, seems oblivious of, is there is a part of constitutional jurisprudence that he may not have learned in law school.  It falls under the rubric of "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."  meaning in short, that all of the laws, precedents and rulings of courts are subordinated to the survival of the enterprise which we call The United States of America.  And the person who is authorized to exercise such authority is the elected President, when he is doing it for this purpose and none other.  And that the members of the Supreme court, when acting as patriots, are charged to defer to such actions.

As a country we are protected from annihilation by military invasion, yet the danger remains of collapse of  any of the complex transnational relationships that allow our world to continue along its challenging path.  A central one is our economic system, based on intertwining public and private assumptions, one of which being the integrity of  American financial obligations. We are now in a position where those representing a minority of American citizens, by their position in a single house of our bicameral federal legislature are threatening to destroy the keystone of this vital international system.

The President of the United States, as of this moment has stated that, unlike his greatest predecessors, he will not go beyond the letter of the law to defeat this threat that has unknowable consequences.   If the worst outcome follows from this cutoff of funds, not only will his party share the blame, but he will be known not for his tepid arguments against those who refused to pass the extension, but for being the President who refused to accept the higher responsibility of his position, which is doing everything possible to ensure the survival of his country.
---------------
References

From N.Y. Times, that the ceiling can be ignored:
The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out
and this article.

Argument against
A Ceiling We Can’t Wish Away

Wikipedia article on history of authorization for increasing national debt.

Newton tragedy. Was it a "heinous" crime.

Why does it matter that this is how President Obama described it in this speech immediately after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School?  Our language, the meaning of words, in many ways defines a culture, and when used to describe an event such as this, will influence how we conceptualize and formulate our response. 

Presidential words spoken at historical moments do matter, as the,"day that will live in infamy" energized a nation to sacrifice in a long painful war.  That sneak attack could have then, and could still be described as heinous, as it was perpetrated by those who were aware of the human destruction who made a calculated choice to cause the suffering that ensued.  Ironically, the attack was not technically a crime, as this was before the Nuremberg Trials, and the UN Charter. We no longer would use the term, since the need to instill hatred of the Japs, like the word itself,  has been replaced by many generations of peaceful interaction with our Japanese friends.

Yet, even when our current President was aware that the agent of last week's suffering, Adam Lanza, had himself committed suicide, and the picture of a seriously dysfunctional young man was becoming clear, he chose this word.  It could have been used appropriately on December 8, 1941, but not last week, no matter how terrible the carnage that occurred.  We need to preserve words like "heinous" with all their sting; and no one, especially the elected leader of the country, should distort its boundaries.

Most words convey more than their dictionary definitions. When researching this word, mostly there are a list of synonyms, such as from this legal web site: Heinous means hateful or shockingly evil. A grossly wicked or reprehensible action is called heinous act. The term is mostly used to refer to crimes. For example, heinous murder. A bit closer to how I see the word was from a Hindi dictionary, that defined the closest word that specifically included the focus on the actor, "no excess was too monstrous for them to commit" which leads into why I am writing about what seems like a simple choice of a phrase.

No one has ever called a tornado or earthquake heinous, or maybe they did in much earlier times when such forces were deemed the acts of the devil or evil spirits. And perhaps during those dark days, the leader of the tribe could inveigh against such evil doers and capture the imagination of his people by a promise of retribution against them.  This personification of something that causes great harm while perhaps being comforting, or directing pain, by distorting reality lessens the ability to actually do something about the problem.

In reality we are helpless against the twister that rains death and destruction on those in its winding narrow path.   Yet, to describe such a force of nature as heinous doesn't fit-- no more than so describing the actions of a young person who had shown his incapability of functioning in society, and whose suffering was ignored until the rare explosion occurred.  Criminal sanctions are for those with the capacity to understand and control their actions, and thus be deterred by fear of punishment.  The tagging of  "crime, and its degree" for one so at war with himself as to welcome death is meaningless.

As much as we have only minimal understanding of these pathologies, societal and individual, we have even less political will to address them for what they are, rather than as an evil to be exorcised by punishment of the perpetrator. Emphasizing the horror of it does not make it more of a crime and less of a human tragedy, one that in this case included the person who was the last to die.