Anonymous on the Internet

Because there's nothing like a thoughtful article about anonymity on the Internet: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/mf_minerva/all/1

The article tells the story of the South Korean blogger Minerva, and how he moved from anonymity and influence to notoriety and a court trial. Park Dae-Sung became tremendously influential in Korea as the financial markets plummeted, and his anonymous predictions, which he based on careful study of the markets, turned out accurate at important moments. Despite flying rumors before the revelation, he turned out to be nobody particularly qualified; no economist, just a student, and not a reformed greedy financier as he'd presented himself.

Orson Scott Card himself, on his web site, noticed the resemblance of the Minerva case to his book Ender's Game, where Val and Peter become Locke and Demosthenes, using the anonymous names' freedom to pretend to more gravity and influence than they actually had. Sometimes doing that attracts attention in itself, as the anonymous writer can come across as someone powerful who wanted to speak the truth without compromising an established reputation.

Minerva was uncovered in the end, though, in a way that also uncovered serious flaws in the system of South Korean law and government, if the Wired article is accurate in its judgements (something I don't really know much about so I can't be sure). Internet and privacy, and whether it is the government's job to keep the Internet clean and tidy for its citizens, is of course a whole other debate, worthy of discussion but not for this post. But the article is an excellent read, with its insights into the economic crisis, South Korean society, the nature of anonymity on the Internets, and the interaction of opinions with the sources that form them.

Obama's Nobel Speech- Some Thoughts on War and Peace and Society

I wanted to do a full analysis of Obama's speech, the transcript of which I just finished reading. But I haven't the time to do it justice at the moment. So a just a few thoughts and impressions here.

I will say that I was impressed. By his opening, by who he chose to quote and acknowledge (not who you'd necessarily expect), and by the issues he brought up and discussed. I like how he acknowledges the need to struggle against evil even though we cannot win in our lifetimes, and I like the fact that he uses his brain when he talks and his ideas are well thought out and presented- on both moral/ethical and intellectual grounds.

I think there were some issues that he did not bring up, and could have, maybe should have. But he chose to stick with the obvious topics pretty much throughout- although it was bold to give specific examples of countries that fell short. Not so PC but nothing too offensive to anyone either.

I'd need to do a lot of thinking before I figured out myself exactly where I think he's right and where I disagree. As he's obviously put a lot more thought into the subject of war and peace than I have. (Maybe that's as it should be, maybe not.)

Not everyone will agree with everything he says. But I do think that there should be people in the society who think differently from the leader of the society when it comes to issues like this. Let the leaders take the stance that's best for the whole world overall, if someone must. In general, it should be the job of individuals, not a leader, to be wholly anti-war and stand up for the individual lives that are destroyed in fighting. Only if you have those voices raised up, and heard, can you have a leader who argues, like Obama is doing, that some wars do need to be fought as a matter of conscience (and he said it very well).

I think sometimes you need people around who remind you of all sides, the collective and the individual rights and welfare, who can help society find the right balance for each situation. Every country's job is to set up a system in which the right things in that balance can happen; where no one person's plan of action blocks consideration of any other option.

I do like how he cites people from JFK to Nixon to a pope. It's kind of fascinating, how he works-it's like how he made a staff out of his electionary opponents (Biden, Clinton) and admires Reagan as a president despite how different they all are.

Here's a sampling of which words he used most frequently- can be telling sometimes. I saw elsewhere on the internet that he used the word war double the number of times he used peace- but I don't think it was quite that drastic, he used peace a lot too, and one cannot entirely forget context (not taking into account if he said something like, no more war, for example). But for what it's worth, and because wordles are lots of fun, take a look.

Autumn- favorite season?

On my way to the polls today, I noticed what a beautiful day it was. Despite the recent time-change so that it starts getting dark at an unearthly hour of the afternoon, its really a lovely season- I don't think I remembered how nice autumn can be. Or if I'd ever noticed before. I've never called it my favorite season, and I still don't think it is- but the air was clear and crisp and easy to breathe, chill enough for a cozy sweatshirt but not too cold. The sky was glowing with the light of the upcoming sunset, and the trees were a full range of yellows, with an occasional ruby or coppery orange, highlighted against a perfect blue sky.

Then I walked into a dingy little building to vote. Worthwhile, I hope, but the contrast was startling and hopefully not metaphoric.

So can I call autumn my new favorite season? Remains to be seen.

Exactitude

I don't like vague answers, or history revisionists. If something is true, say it as such. Do not alter the facts to make your point, you will only confuse, annoy, or anger your students.

Case in point: When trying to show, as an example of leaders who go to war for defensive reasons, to protect their own borders, don't name, of all people, Hitler! And don't go specifically stating that "Hitler wanted to take over Europe, right? And eventually the world. This was to ensure the protection of Germany's security."

Taking over the world is in self defense. Oh, of course. Not insane overblown nationalistic megalomania, xenophobic racist hatred for anything "other", even a messed up childhood or something- no, no, certainly not. How could anyone ever think otherwise.

I never imagined anyone could say anything like that while conscious! Needless to say this is no longer a class that I'm taking.

Locke and Demosthenes

Take a look at this cartoon: xkcd.com's "Locke and Demosthenes".

I loved that part of Ender's Game- the clever way two kids could use words to change things- themselves, and the world. The scene where Val is upset when her father sides with her own secret identity, because she had thought no reasonable person ever could, stands out in my memory with particular poignancy.

But they didn't just make a blog (kind of like I'm doing right now, hmm) they used message boards and such and responded to other people to the extent that they got jobs as newspaper columnists.

Also, I'm not as ambitious. And I hate Peter, although I kind of like Val more than Ender even.

I want a philosophical nom de plume, though! It's just fun. I'll have to think about it.

"You Lie!"

I'm feeling cynical today. A senator losing all his self-control and actually yelling at the president mid-speech? I mean, why?? The choices are:

a- Wilson has a big ego and likes to interrupt regardless of the consequences, uncaring in regard to all reasonable behavior and ignorant of historical precedent for Senatorial procedure.

b- He is trying to win political capital in his own state as one willing to stand up to the evil death-panel man, and this was a deliberately calculated "outburst".

I'm not sure which is worse.