ThomStratton.com

I know what you’re thinking: “Only one thing?” Good point. But this, in light of everything else that’s going on, is troubling. I don’t care for porn myself. Please keep it off my computer and away from my kids. Fine. But it’s not illegal, and the people employed therein are adults. They should no more be denied banking services than gays or politicians.

So what the heck is going on here?!

I work for a bank, so I know all about how the government can make life difficult for banks. I was briefly involved in a project in which we were supposed to deliver data on our full portfolio of loans every quarter. The deadline was only months away and the government still couldn’t settle on a final list of what data they wanted. But could we do anything about it? Nope. We had to deliver and hope what we sent them was correct when it got there.

The project I’m on now has an interface to a system that checks every name against a goverment watch list. If someone is on that list we have no choice but to deny them any services. Considering all the fun and games surrounding the Federal “No Fly” list, it’s not hard to imagine people could accidentally or purposely end up on the banking watch list. And we have a government that has proven time and again that they’re willing to politicize any department, any system.

So if this is true, we shouldn’t just shrug and say, “It’s only the porn stars. Big deal.” You never now who will be next.

Three fencing masters take on fifty novices. It’s a situation we’ve seen in many a movie, whether it’s Bruce Lee single-handedly taking on the entire mafia or Bruce Willis tackling several dozen terrorists. We initially thrill at their skill, then on later reflection realize the bad guys went about it all wrong.

Well, some Japanese television show decided to conduct an experiment in which three fencing masters took on a mob of amateurs. What they found was interesting. The question is whether or not the novices were initially influenced by how mobs are supposed to attack, according to movies, or if self-preservation is the main motivator. It’s certainly interesting to watch. Fortunately you don’t need to know Japanese to understand what’s going on.

Take a quick survey of your current events intake. How much of it is actual news, reported in a “facts only” news story, and how much is punditry? I’ll bet 60-75% of it is opinion, editorial, or social media reaction. It used to be “we report, you decide.” Now it’s “We report, we decide, we tell you what you should think.” We choose our outlets not by how accurate and thorough they are, but by how well their slant lines up with our own.

How often do any of us purposely go out and find stories on what “the other side” thinks? How many of us do it with the intent to weigh their arguments fairly and alter our own perceptions if necessary? More often than not, if we take in any media from the opposition it’s with the intent to be outraged or mock.

We have access to more opinion than ever before. Unfortunately, doubling the size of the haystack doesn’t make the needle of truth any easier to find. Not that we’re really looking for the needle. Why bother, when the straws of hay are so darn entertaining? “When I want up-to-the-minute, accurate news…I go to Caesar’s Palace!”

When is the last time you learned something new about current events on Facebook? When is the last time you got irritated or upset over some commentary about news someone posted on Facebook? Even if you can think of a recent example of the former, I suspect you’ve had many, many more examples of the latter.

Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” That’s only become more and more prevalent as we come to rely, not on the actual details of situations, but on what our trusted talking heads have to say about the situation. Not that there is any such thing as impartial journalism, but we’ve come to rely on people who have no obligation to inform, only entertain and opine. We’re getting our information three or four steps removed, and from people who are more than happy to expound on things they know no more about than we do.

And we asked for it. We responded positively to it, even sought it out, and so the market shifted to provide us what we want instead of what we need. It’s like those fairy tales where someone makes a wish thinking their problems will all be solved, only to find they’ve traded one set of problems for another, and often worse. It’s the magical gift that proves to be a curse.

I’m guilty of it. It’s hard not to be guilty of it, especially since most of the sources of unfiltered news have disappeared, and the few remaining sources are struggling to stay afloat. Why waste time wandering about with our lanterns in search of an honest source? Stay inside where it’s warm and familiar, and where our favorite thinkers will tell us what to think about news we’ve not even heard.

The Truth is out there. Stay home where it’s safe.

Much has been made of the racist remarks made by the owner of the LA Clippers basketball team. Very little has been made of the fact that his remarks came during a private conversation which he was not aware was being recorded. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, however, has this to say in an editorial for Time magazine:

Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.

Excellent and interesting analogy–and editorial. Worth reading.

We Americans are an interesting lot. We care deeply about our privacy, so long as it’s our privacy and not someone else’s. If our neighbor shoots video through our bedroom window and puts it online we’d be incensed and mortified. If some semi-celebrity’s girlfriend records a private conversation and it gets leaked to the media we’re totally fine with it because it catches someone being bad. Never mind that this person has been caught before, publicly being bad. We need a private conversation before we’ll get upset to do something about it.

But answer me this, as honestly as you can? Who of us would like a recording of us at our private worst made public? How many of us have said something incredibly stupid in a heated conversation behind closed doors that could be taken as evidence that we are an irredeemably terrible person? I know I have.

Don’t give me any, “Well, they are celebrities, they shouldn’t expect any real privacy” garbage. Don’t try to tell me it’s okay to record and expose people in this manner because they were doing something wrong. Only answer me this: Would you like it done to you? Would you like someone to pour through your life and pick out the parts they think are interesting/incriminating? Would you like your reputation as a parent, a spouse, a friend, or a community volunteer defined by a fifteen minute conversation that someone else got to pick?

I’m not saying Donald Sterling’s racism is limited to that fifteen minute recording. As Mr. Abdul-Jabbar points out, there was plenty of public evidence before–and no one cared. On the contrary, it appears that the main reason we care so much about Mr. Sterling’s opinions are because they were private. That’s the problem here: not that bad people are getting caught being bad, but that we are so casual about how they were caught. If you are thinking to yourself, “Well, I’ve got nothing to hide, so it wouldn’t bother me,” then you are seriously ignorant of your own life. I dare you to record yourself for 24 hours and send me the tape. Let me comb through it and see if I think you’ve got nothing to hide. (No, please don’t. Just making a point here!)

Think about your life from the standpoint of an enemy. Even if you didn’t say or do anything illegal, we live in a world where legality is the least of our concerns. We’re obsessed with “right thinking”, and if someone violates our private standards we’ll find an extra-legal way to punish them ourselves. We don’t need the legal system to ruin people we decide need to be ruined (though it can certainly be a great tool). We don’t even need a majority of public opinion on our side. We just need enough people behind us to make the pain/pressure sufficient.

Think about your last big argument with your kids, spouse, friend or sibling. Do you honestly believe, had that been recorded and made public, there wouldn’t be enough people out there who would decide that’s who you really are all the time, and that you need to be stopped? You don’t think they couldn’t make your life unbearable? Remember George Zimmerman? Remember the poor, unfortunate couple who were forced out of their home because Spike Lee “outed” the wrong George Zimmerman’s address? Do you think there weren’t already people calling every George Zimmerman in the phonebook and harassing them in the hope they got the right one in there somewhere?

That’s the problem with everything these days. We believe that someone else’s bad behavior justifies our horrible behavior. If we think someone is guilty then we are completely justified in doing whatever we feel like doing to make sure they receive “justice.” But it’s not justice. It’s not even vigilantism. It’s mobocracy of the worst kind. We invade–or allow to be invaded–people’s privacy for an excuse to haul them out in the middle of the night to tar-n-feather them. And we convince ourselves it’s okay because we’re on the right side of history, and they were people who needed to be taught a lesson.

The only constant is change. The “right side” today won’t be the “right side” tomorrow. Someday you may wind up on the receiving end of someone’s righteous enmity. You’ll be amazed at how quickly you’ll wish there were laws against people doing that to people (aka you). The thing is, there are. But if we conveniently set them aside any time it suits our purposes we have no business complaining when we one day find the laws don’t work for us, either.

We didn’t steal the cake, but might just choke on it.

I never would have thought there’d be a market for tumbleweeds, but…well, there is. It just goes to show you the world will always be stranger than we can imagine.

I’ve never read a Robison Wells book, but I’m familiar with him as a person. He’s active in the local writers scene, and a rather brave guy to go public about his mental disorders. Unfortunately, his issues have cost him his job, and though he’s got a number of writing projects going to handle things long-term, the short-term reality is that he and his family are in dire financial straits.

Brandon Sanderson and Robison’s brother, Dan Wells have put together an anthology project to help, called “Altered Perceptions“, and marketed via IndieGoGo. Their goal is to help Rob and to set up a fund to help other writers in similar circumstances. Here’s a list of who is participating in the anthology:

Ally Condie, the foreword
Dan Wells, the introduction
Annette Lyon, An unpublished chapter from her retelling of the Finnish fairy tale, THE KALEVALA
Aprilynne Pike, TBA
Brandon Mull, Deleted scenes from BEYONDERS 2
Brandon Sanderson, five completely rewritten chapters from THE WAY OF KINGS, where Kaladin makes the opposite choice of what he makes in the published novel
Bree Despain, an alternate ending to THE LOST SAINT, and an alternate beginning to THE SHADOW PRINCE
Brodi Ashton, the first chapter from her YA novel about an unwilling alien fighter who has to rescue the boy she loves
Claudia Gray, a deleted scene from A THOUSAND PIECES OF YOU
Dan Wells, the original John Cleaver free-write that inspired I AM NOT A SERIAL KILLER
Erin Bowman, a deleted scene from TAKEN
Howard Tayler, a creative non-fiction story about life with mental illness
J Scott Savage, three original chapters that led to writing FARWORLD
Jennifer Moore, a deleted scene from BECOMING LADY LOCKWOOD
Jessica Day George, a deleted scene from PRINCESS OF GLASS, where the main character plays poker with a witch
Josi Kilpack, the original opening scene to TRES LECHES CUPCAKE
Kiersten White, an original short story, set in a dystopian, sci-fi world
Larry Correia, a deleted fight scene from SWORDS OF EXODUS
Lauren Oliver, two deleted scenes from PANDEMONIUM, plus a hilarious scene about the plotting process
Luisa Perkins, a short story, “Seeing Red”–a modern-day retelling of Little Red Riding Hood.
Mary Robinette Kowal, deleted scene from VALOUR AND VANITY (the scene was cut because readers thought the scene was trying to depict depression)
Nancy Allen, bonus scene from BEAUTY AND THE CLOCKWORK BEAST
Robison Wells, an epilogue to FEEDBACK and the VARIANT duology
Sandra Tayler, a creative non-fiction piece called “Married To Depression”
Sara Zarr, a story featuring characters from one of Sara’s previously published novels
Sarah Eden, “Farewells” for LONGING FOR HOPE and HOPE SPRINGS
Seanan McGuire, The original opening for DISCOUNT ARMAGEDDON
Shannon Hale, ”Ravenous,” a previously unpublished scifi short story
SJ Kincaid, the original first chapter of VORTEX, before it was entirely rewritten

Check out the campaign and see if this is something you can help out with. It’s off to a good start, but it’s going to take a lot of support to get it over the top.

Think traffic/drivers are bad where you live? Try Meskel Square in Kera, Ethiopia. It’s amazing there aren’t continual wrecks. It’s also somewhat hypnotic to watch:

You’re probably already getting tired of me talking about “Pattern Recognition”, but bear with me. Like most books we read multiple times, we pick out different things at different times–a reflection on who we are and what’s on our minds at the time we are reading as much as saying anything about the book itself. The book hasn’t changed, but we, as the reader, have.

For example, I’ve noticed for the first time that the novel is written in the present tense. It’s also occurred to me that Gibson’s characterizations are subtle, yet solid. It’s dawned on me that the reason why I like “Pattern Recognition” better than “Spook Country” or “Zero History” could very well be because of the main characters. Cayce Pollard is a different person than Hollis Henry or Milgrim, and while they’re not unlikable characters, they’re not Cayce. I really like Cayce, and I prefer her perspective to that of the other two. Gibson is able to make them distinct characters, not simply a projection of himself.

But what I’d really like to talk about today is another aspect that stuck out: Googling people. Or perhaps more accurately, our online personae. Several times the book includes someone researching someone else or their work. At one point researchers are sent combing through a discussion forum to identify key players, and they are able to determine that one of the most helpful of them is our protagonist.

I can’t help but wonder what people would see if they researched my online personae. Would they be able to read my blog posts, for example, and then determine that my Facebook posts are written by the same person? I suspect so. I don’t think I’m inconsistent in how I portray myself from platform to platform.

But if we were to go deeper, try and piece together a composite of who I am, based on my content online, what would someone come up with? While I’m not not myself online, there are aspects of myself that I allow to come out more than others, while others still never see the light of pixel. How would people see me based on what I allow to show?

It’s tempting to engage in an archeology project and research myself, except it would be impossible to approach it at all objectively. There may be posts sufficiently old that I won’t remember writing them, or recall the context. Those could prove interesting. But they could also prove inaccurate. I’ve changed. There’s no denying that fact that I’ve probably changed more in the last five years than in any other portion of my life–perhaps even in the last two years. Most change is a slow process, almost imperceptible to the constant observer. I’m not sure I could put my finger on what has changed, but I know I have.

I’ve likely said before that it’s one of the biggest blessings and curses that we can never see ourselves the way others do. But I can’t help but wonder sometimes just what I look like.