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.

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.

J. Edgar

Watched J. Edgar last night.

This morning when I got up, the movie was still on my mind. Foremost were two questions: What is this movie inviting me to think about, and How much of what I saw is reliably true?

The second question bears considering first, as it plays into the first.

I watched the credits in their entirety to gain some insight – hoping to see something about the sources, their reliability, etc. Of course, this is a movie, but based upon history... What did come up was standard boilerplate: “Although this movie is based upon historical facts, some scenes were dramatized...”

Which is very disquieting in terms of uncovering how we should view this movie. There are many, many scenes which involve J. Edgar alone, or J. Edgar and one other person, very often another person who was considerably loyal (and unlikely to record separate notes on what took place.) So, every scene with just him and his mother, just him and his friend Clyde, or him and his secretary Helen becomes suspect as to its accuracy, and without additional confirmation, we have to take the information portrayed and, if not discount, at least tend very carefully to its influence on our thinking.

So, for instance: We cannot take at face value the movie's assertion that his mother was his rock, his mentor until her death (when Hoover was well into adulthood, perhaps his 40's, the exact timing of certain events was difficult to ascertain giving the movie's habit of jumping back and forth in time), that he had not 'grown up' until then and was instead still in some Freudian relationship. Maybe, maybe not. We cannot trust the exact nature of his friendship with Clyde, either: so much of what was portrayed takes place behind closed doors – certainly Clyde never spoke of it to another? That their friendship was profound, that they placed almost complete trust and gave complete loyalty to one another we can see, but...again, the intimations, giving from two un-verifiable scenes, one with his mother discussing a childhood friend, the other in a hotel room of a fight with Clyde, we cannot take as true.

Which leaves us to contemplate the remainder comprised of stuff that certainly is true: That J. Edgar oversaw and drove a burearu from its nascent, 1919 form to the powerful entity that it was in the 1960's. That he was both instrumental to its success and prone to exaggerate his own importance. That he surrounded himself with two individuals who appear to have had a like-minded pursuit of the work they were in: That catching criminals and preventing a radical take-over of America took precedence over all else in life. That he was profoundly paranoid of that possibility.

Which I think is the invitation the movie gives us: We are to consider the differences between the as portrayed useful paranoia of J. Edgar which drives him to ask of congress for more power for the Bureau, for the ability for its agents to carry guns, for Bureau jurisdiction of kidnapping, and retention of all fingerprints, and the establishment of a well-staffed and well-funded forensics lab; and the as portrayed over-blown paranoia which drives him to write an inflammatory letter to Martin Luther King, to keep his own set of 'confidential' files on the private doings of others in power, to exaggerate his participation to his memoirs, and to stoop to blackmail when he sees his or the Bureau’s power threatened.

The fact that the two levels of paranoia co-exist and exert themselves throughout his life is an interesting insight into the complexity of Edgar Hoover and his actions. We can see, wrapped up in a single individual, a drive that gives him insights and the will to pursue them that is beneficial, at the same time the very same forces are driving him beyond to actions many would consider self-serving and to a degree contradictory to his mission (for blackmail and un-warranted eavesdropping are certainly illegal activities.)

Finally, the movie, in an amazingly neutral manner, does give us something to think about: J. Edgar Hoover was certainly participating in pre-emptive surveillance; intelligence gathering of the individuals who may or may not prove a threat to his power or the nation, individuals who had committed no crimes other than show that they had a following, individuals both within and without government. That he used that information a few times is certainly true, but what should give us pause as to its true purpose: He commanded (and it was apparantly carried out) of his secretary to destroy the files if ever anything became of him.

That level of paranoia certainly is not healthy for an individual, or a nation.

Avatar

I saw the movie 'Avatar' yesterday.

It really was like nothing I've seen before. The computer generated scenes blended with the real actors. As Greg Moody said, this movie is worth seeing for the visual effects alone. What's really cool is that the visual effects aren't limited to just pyrotechnics, but a vivid realization of an alien world, complete from fearsome carnivores to strange herbivores, surprising insects, and a flora as varied and sometimes startling as found in any rain forest on Earth.

The Science Fiction in the movie does leave a few questions unanswered, and a few inconsistencies. I awoke this morning to a couple of questions of “But what if?” and “If that worked there, why didn't it work later in the movie?”. Part of the movie is very Matrix-like, with humans making a mind-transferring link to another entity; But unlike the Matrix, when the humans leave their Avatar's body, it leaves the Avatar incapacitated, and very vulnerable. Surprisingly, nothing happens to them in that state.

But those are just nits in what is other-wise a fine movie. Although, as has been pointed out, the plot is fairly simple, that's not the point of this particular film. James Cameron has a message to convey, and everything in the movie, from the actions of the aliens and The People, from the portrayal of a rich, green, interconnected and spiritual world contrasted with greedy, destructive and isolated self-interest is used as metaphor to drive the point. It may be a little heavy-handed at times, but this particular message has been given many times with more subtlety, and unheard, so perhaps Mr. Cameron can be forgiven.

Sadly, one of my movie-going friends indicated that many of those that would benefit most by contemplating the message have already rejected it. If only there were a metaphor for a closed mind in the movie...

Ah, yes. In the words of the Na'vi, “You can't add to a vessel that's already full.”

Indeed.

But for those whose vessels are receptive, Avatar is the most richly imagined and vividly realized telling to date. I recommend it.