My Take on The Interview

I find myself fairly annoyed when someone says something patently stupid, or absurd, or hurtful (bigoted, misogynistic, racist), and, when called out for it, instead of retreating, apologizing, they double down, shouting 'Free Speech!' “I'm standing up for Freedom of Speech!”

Er, no.

When the First Amendment was penned, they were thinking of protecting the sorts of speech that could be silenced (and often had been, through imprisonment or worse) by those in power: Criticism of actions, Truth (that others wished to remain hidden), Alternative Viewpoints. They realized that a democracy could not long endure if potential candidates could be silenced before elections could take place.

Now, one of our improvements on the original thinking is the growing understanding that power also resides in locations other than our government: Corporations have power, Employers have power, Religions have power, even the Wealthy have power (although the Robert's Court seems intent on willfully ignoring this fact.) Protecting our ability to Speak Truth to Power, of bringing criminal activity to light, has led to a broadening of the sorts of speech that cannot be retaliated against. (Whistle-blower protections are a specific implementation that comes readily to mind.)

All of these thoughts have been rolling around in my mind as I've watched the unfolding brouhaha over the release, retraction, limited re-release of the movie “The Interview”. When Sony retracted the movie, many were shocked, claiming that it was a direct hit to artistic freedom, to free speech. Upon its limited re-release, many of those interviewed have acted like they are some sort of admirable patriot, standing up for freedom. I think they are wrong: Sony's actions vis-a-vis “The Interview” have nothing to do with freedom of speech. They have to do with ethics (or a lack thereof). An ethical person would not have made such a movie.

Have you ever noticed the disclaimer at the start of every work of fiction, or the end of every such movie? “The characters and events portrayed are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental...” By creating a work of fiction, artists are freed to explore actions that are taboo or criminal. By not tying the events or the characters to actual people, specific people are not called out, their reputations neither questioned nor harmed. Plus, there is a big difference between exploring the idea of killing an individual, with its attendant consequences, and writing about killing a specific, actual individual.

Here's where I have a beef with the movie and with the actions of those surrounding it. If someone were to text “I'm going to kill so-and-so”, we would not take that as something to be ignored under the guise of free speech. We would grow concerned, and probably call for a police investigation. If, upon investigation, the police uncovered detailed plans on how the first individual would carry out the deed, we would see that as proof of criminal intent, and call for prosecution.

I know. “The Interview” is not proof of Seth Rogan's intent to kill Kim Jung-un, nor proof that Mr Rogan has murderous thoughts. But, by calling out a specific world-leader, rather than a fictitious entity, Mr. Rogan has made it ambiguous. Those of us who believe assassination to be a criminal act expect any movie exploring such themes to take them seriously, (the upcoming movie American Sniper appears to take this tact), or, if satirized, to at least fictionalize the story enough that we can tell the creator agrees with us.

We certainly wouldn't stand by if, for instance, Bollywood were to release a movie depicting (even comically) an attempted assassination of President Obama. It would be much easier to see that has crossed a line, and is not the sort of movie we would like to see made.

Calling into question the ethics of “The Interview”, even motivating against its release (and hopefully, against anyone who would make such a movie in the future), is not an attack on either free speech nor artistic expression. It is simply indicating that there should be ethics that are adhered to, that there is a gulf between speaking truth to power and depicting (attempted) violence against an actual person.

Agreed: The actions of the hackers were particularly ham-fisted and criminal, and I would like to explore that (and its fall-out) in a little more depth (later). But just because someone acted criminally to call out the stupidity of some speech doesn't make the speech any better, any more legitimate. “The Interview” is still perverse, and not anything that should have been said.

Free Will and Democracy

In 1797, the Reverend Timothy Dwight, then president of Yale University, argued “...that if God had decided from all eternity that an individual's fate was to die of smallpox, it was a sin to interfere with the divine plan through a man-made trick like vaccination.”

Sound familiar?

Everyone has their own conception of what a god or God is, how he or she interacts with the world. We cannot possibly address all concepts in a morning essay. However, the line of thinking implicit in Reverend Dwight's argument, and present too in Candidate Mourdock's recent comments on pregnancy resulting from rape, is of a god that influences or guides our behavior.

Probably the most useful image of God in this instance is of the Platonic God: The God represents in his or her divine instance all that is good or perfect. To illuminate our behavior, we have only to ask, “Is my behavior emulating what would be the behavior of one who is perfect, and perfectly good?” If so, the behavior is likely acceptable, if not, one may wish to reconsider.

But that is not the god that Dwight and Mourdock envision. Their god has a plan, and interfering with the plan is the wrong, for the simple reason that we cannot know the plan aforehand, and it is then assumed that what ever occurs is the plan!

Notice, however, that the God of Dwight and Mourdock is indistinguishable from a non-god, indistinguishable from the absence of any god. It is impossible to discern, using their logic, that there is a god in the universe. Saying that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will is logically equivalent to saying that a pregnancy resulting from rape is Nature's natural outcome – there is no test that could be administered to determine the difference.

Mourdock's conclusion rhetorically begs the question...

But the line of thinking is more insidious than even that. Implicit in reaching the conclusion that we shouldn't interfere is to deny the concept of Free Will, the concept that we can (and should!) make our decisions and choices upon the best available information currently at hand.

Present at our nation's founding were individuals steeped in Enlightenment ideals, individuals who were willing to place Free Will front and center of our public and political discourse. A Democracy cannot exist without Free Will, and the exercise thereof. Freely we can make arguments for or against our behaviors, for or against laws and policies that may constrain that behavior, and freely we can submit to the conclusions. However, democratic discourse has no place for vacuous appeals to invisible authority, no place for attempts to eliminate the exercise of Free Will from individuals and replace it with one person's concept of what should be.

People who exhibit thinking like Mourdock (we can add Todd Akins as another example) have no place in public office. Their underlying thought processes hew back to the days of predestination, back to unquestioned submission to authority. Their thinking denies Free Will, denies that others have the right to exercise it, denies a foundational cornerstone of Democracy.

In so doing, they reveal that they are unfit for public office in our Democracy.

How To Curb The Power Of Democracy

You have to admit it: Democracy is messy. Everyone gets a say in all matters, even the poor and uneducated. We toss and turn in the sea of public opinion, some informed, some ill-formed, some completely uninformed. What the masses want is not always the desire of those in power, or those with wealth. If you wanted to control or diminish the power of Democracy, what could you do?

First, I think you would posit something called a Free Market. You would imbue it with the power of a god – make it all encompassing, pure, and always correct. Posit that the God Market perfectly rewards those who work hard, and likewise punishes those who are negligent in their production or attention. Posit that the God Market is Strongly Efficient: the values It determines, whether they be salaries or prices or rewards of any sort, they are exactly the correct salaries or prices or rewards.

Now you have the perfect tool to curtail the power of The People. If they advocate for higher wages, you can simply beat them back: Their wages are exactly the wages God The Market has determined should accrue to one who does what they do. Paying them other than what the God Market has chosen is an affront, and will have many negative consequences.

Perhaps they would use their democratic powers to move something from the realm of the private into the realm of the public with the desire that the fruits of society should benefit all of its members. Again,

remind them that public entities are fraught with inefficiency and corruption – you know, because God The Market has informed you, and It has no interest in rewarding any who would not strive alone to better themselves.

You can even use it to bruise their ego. Observably, the masses are poor, and since the God Market is purely efficient and correct, ergo, they deserve their lot in life. Who would dare go against what is pure and true? Those who have succeeded, by definition, are those who have worked harder, dared more, and received the bounty of the God Market! Repeat often, and perhaps they will learn the error of choosing Democracy, and stop attempting to use their votes and some pathetic egalitarian ideal to oppose that which is natural and pure and good, and just go and toil for the God Market.

For surely, you can point to your own success, and recognize that it is of course the result of a mighty struggle that has received the beneficence of God The Free Market, and you now have the perfect tool with which to flay Democracy: Indeed, you can point to your own neutrality! Do The People want clean air and plentiful, pure water? It is not for you or they to decide: The God Market will provide those as needed and when needed, and if they are not as clean as some want, well, who are they to go against the providence of the God Market?

Use the tool often and with energy, and perhaps this desire for messy interference with the natural order of things, this desire to make society better for all, this desire to diminish the injustices of previous generations can be caused to wither, perhaps die. Those who would choose their fellow citizen over personal gain can see the error of their ways. For once this arrogant wrongness, this affront, this virtual heresy that is Democracy is banished, then all can turn towards the God Market and have its splendor and perfection shine upon their faces, and the world can become Its perfect reflection.

Privilege and Easter

Last night we watched Cecile DeMille's 1956 classic, “The Ten Commandments”.

The root of this story is the slavery of the Hebrew people at the hands of the Egyptians, and their eventual deliverance into freedom and ultimately nationhood. Their slavery is depicted as cruel and unrelenting; they are basically used and thrown away when no longer able to do the manufacturing demanded of them by their privileged masters. One of the earliest stories in the Christian anthology places a premium on self-determination, on freedom, on the evils of enslavement.

Today I was reading Dylan Ratigan, and he writes (fn1):

“The policy machinations happen on the other side of the Pacific, not just in America. In March 2006, write[sic] Brendan Smith, Tim Costello, and Jeremy Brecher in Asia Times, the Chinese government proposed a new labor law that would have improved working conditions moderately. In response, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, as well as US corporations such as General Electric, Wal-Mart, and even Google lobbied against the law, and in some cases threatened to leave China for countries such as Pakistan and Thailand if it passed. By December, the Chinese government had revised the draft law to limit workers' rights in the areas of contracts, collective bargaining, and severance, among others.”

He was writing about the nearly intolerable working conditions at many Chinese manufacturing plants, notably those exposed at Foxconn (maker of iPads, iPhones, and iPods and other Apple products). The workers there have been dubbed 'iSlaves', and for all practical purposes, they are slaves: forced to perform a small set of tasks repeatedly for barely more than sustenance living; their work hours controlled by their masters; many falling prey to central nervous system disorders at an early age as a result of the chemicals they use; and then thrown aside without any further compensation from either their company or their government.(fn4)

The eye-opener is that American companies lobbied against an improvement in working conditions: That Americans felt it was their privilege to be the beneficiaries of the exploitation of poor Chinese citizens. We shouldn't be surprised, though: A lowering of labor standards in China, along with preferential trade status, brings about a lowering of labor standards in America, opening the doors to greater exploitation of the American laborer, along with increased profits for the corporate executives and shareholders who employ said laborers.

Today is Easter – the Holiest Day on the Christian calendar, and the celebration of the life of Jesus. Interestingly, in his teachings, Jesus was consistently against privilege: In his Sermon on the Mount he spoke of the blessedness of the merciful, of the evil that awaits he who attempts to serve two masters and store up money on earth; after the last supper he knelt down and washed his disciples' feet, proclaiming “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” (fn2) Jesus spent his life preaching, teaching, and living against privilege.

And well he should have: For it is privilege, and the seeking of privilege that leads us to acceptance of exploitation and slavery of others; prejudice is our natural defense against the cognitive dissonance that arises when we treat another human as sub- or unworthy.

But, I wonder. Some 70-80 million adults attended Easter Services today in America (fn3). Did they connect the dots? Richard Feynman, the Nobel Physicist, observed that most intelligence is fragile: That information gained in one area or endeavor is seldom transferred to another, even when the situation is an exact transformation. Dr Feynman was renowned for solving problems in chemistry and biology (in addition to his physics), correctly recognizing that the problem was solvable using a transformation of the mathematics and methods he knew.

Jesus spoke against privilege. Moses spoke against slavery. If we connect the line between the two:

Enslavement of the Hebrews was wrong. Enslavement of the Jews (by the Romans) was wrong. Enslavement of the American Negro was wrong. Enslavement of the Chinese Peasantry is wrong. Using the situation of the Chinese peasantry to push the American laborer back towards enslavement is wrong.

How many who attended Easter Services today will wake up tomorrow with a renewed interest in living a life without privilege; will recognize that privilege is what drives them to demand of their leaders (and drives our leaders themselves) to increase exploitation of 'others' around the world; that it is only through the exploitation of those, like the Chinese, that we have all that we have?

Relinquishing privilege can be painful, and leaves us with less material goods, although it strengthens our moral character. Privilege and slavery have been human social constants for most of human civilization. But, humans were not made to toil in poor conditions for the benefit of another; humans were not made to be abused by the whims of a master; each human was made to live a life of free determination, choosing his or her own path, choosing what to do and who to help during his mortal journey, and reaping the rewards thereof. Each should have the ability to work in conditions that are safe, with remuneration above sustenance, without fear of losing their job or their livelihood because some business owners have found a new group of people somewhere to exploit or enslave.

Everywhere and anywhere we see abuse of privilege leading to exploitation of another we must speak out. As the Pharaohs were to the Hebrews, so those today who feel that it is in their power, their privilege to live a life above while at the same time denying freedom to others, especially under the guise of 'employment', must be called out. The executives who would fight to deny a moderate increase in the working conditions of overseas laborers; the executives who would fight to decrease working conditions for their fellow Americans; the lawmakers who allow trade imbalances to continue that make it too easy for Americans to lose sight of the evils of privilege and slavery and so invest their money and talent in exploiting rather than producing; All must made to hear our desire to end both, and to fear our wrath if they do not.

Speaking out against slavery and privilege occupy a place in our oldest writings; We've understood for more than 3000 years that such a relationship is against our very moral fiber. Sadly, our work constructing a society built on a more positive relationship is still very much nascent, constantly thwarted by the powerful and our own innate desire to have more than our neighbor; and our unwillingness, once we find ourselves privileged, to move to strike such thinking from our minds and hearts and promote ideas that are fair to all.

Not the easy road, but if one lesson can be gleaned from today, it is that the correct path is not the easy one. Imagine for just a moment how the difficulties facing us might appear differently if we were to strike privilege and prejudice (and the acceptance of exploitation) from our thinking, from our doing, from the very structure of our society. 

(fn1) Dylan Ratigan. “Greedy Bastards” Loc 995, Kindle Edition, 2011.

(fn2) Jesus washes disciples feet. John 13, v14-15. NIV

(fn3) Estimated Easter Christian Attendance – 70-80 million adults (approximately 1/3 of the nation) - pulled from Wikipedia, Pew Research (59 million average Sunday attendance, Easter approx. 33% higher)

(fn4) No, I am not picking on Apple. I was chagrined to learn that my Kindle was most likely made either there or at an equivalent factory - and that much of what we purchase with the 'Made In China' sticker has aspects of that, although electronics are likely the worst.