Driving Through the South: Where Naked Humanity Looms Large

It's debatable whether anyone actually reads this blog, but should you come across it, surfing the net's high seas, I encourage you to check out the travels of Antennahead. He has just begun driving through the southern United States, videocamera in hand, in hopes of documenting the lives of those he meets in written accounts, pictures and video. He's cooking lentils on a gas stove for food--although hopefully at some point the fishing pole he brought along will be cause for a good written entry.

iOwned

Five years ago today, Steve Jobs stood in a relatively small room in front of a relatively unimpressive PowerPoint presentation (or whatever the Mac equivalent is) speaking to a group of people who all appeared relatively bored – and announced probably the biggest consumer electronics product of the past twenty years. And along with that little white music pal, came the iTunes music store, and the ability to buy music for 99 cents, sync it with your new iFriend and be on your way.


Its arguable which was more responsible for the iPod’s success – the elegant design of the device itself or the extremely easy way in which Apple lets you buy music for it via the iTunes Store. Let’s just say they were both pretty clever and move on. As the program celebrates a half-decade of existence, competitors struggle to stay afloat (or sink almost immediately, as is the case with Amazon’s absolutely dreadful Unbox service), while other DAP (Digital Audio Players) rely on campaigns such as idont and attempt to take even a small portion of the market away from the iPod.

The popularity of the iPod, iTunes Store, and the ever-increasing market share that Apple products take over is very interesting, not because it means that maybe we’re all more creative or because maybe Steve Jobs is really as brilliant as the Mac zealots believe, but because there is possibly something very sinister lurking underneath the always-connected, always-synced Apple world.

Let me start by stating that I’m not targeting Apple with this particular diatribe. Apple is doing what’s best for the company – a company that ten years ago was pretty much going under for good – but the consequences of these actions could be far reaching for media consumers, and more importantly (of course), media creators.


Through the iTunes Store, and the selection of products that interact with it, Apple has created a vertically integrated method of media distribution. Through the miracle of DRM, you can only play music from the iTunes Store in iTunes or on an iPod. Apple has now introduced movies and television into their store, with the same kind of restrictions. At the beginning of next year, the company will release iTV (“working title,” Steve let us know a few months ago) which will hook your Television, possibly stereo up to your Macintosh computer, and interact through Front Row, playing music and movies and television shows that you’ve downloaded on your iTunes account.

This is very, very slick, and knowing Apple’s track record over the past couple years, its going to work pretty well right out of the box. And the problem with it working so well is that a lot of people are going to use it. The popularity of iTunes stems from how easy it is to use, and how consistently it works well, not to mention the fairly vast amount of content available. Apple’s dream is to distribute all media through the program, through its servers to its hardware for you to watch. But isn’t there an inherent problem here? It is yet another massive corporation controlling the way that our media is delivered to us. This limits choice to the consumers but moreover creates yet another limiting factor to media creators.

Huge corporations shouldn’t have their fingers in the business of distributing multiple forms of media. Just because we can point to hundreds of other companies that do it, doesn’t mean that Apple joining in is a good, or even acceptable thing. I am having a hard time thinking of any multi-media distribution that works ethically, and I can think of some that are just downright evil (oh hello, SONY). Moreover, at the end of the day, ease of delivery only helps media consumers become even lazier (as if that were possible), and lazy consumers eat what they’re fed for the most part. Now that Apple has such a vested interest in Disney (and its many, many subsidiaries), having content decisions made at the iTunes Store level really doesn’t sound too great. And “evil” multi-media distribution companies? Disney isn’t doing much to warm my heart.


If DRM fails, which it very well might, a lot of these problems would be more or less solved, as then Apple distributed media will be used on a lot more non-Apple units, and just join the swell of music, television, literature and films that we’re swimming in. And there’s still hundreds of ways to get media online (a lot of them legal!), so none of the above problems will effect more educated computer users and media consumers. But not many of them are using iTunes. Moreover, Apple’s already won this round, as they were out of the gate well ahead of their competitors, but also well ahead of their critics. The pieces for vertically integrated media distribution are already in place, and Apple’s already reaping the benefits. Whether we commend them for this is up to us, and whether we decide to spend $14.99 on a low-quality, DRM-ed copy of Pirates of the Caribbean rather than picking up the DVD is too.

My point here isn’t to uninstall iTunes from your computer or to trade your iPod in for a Sandisk Sansa. Instead, as we embrace new forms of media distribution, we must become ever more vigilant, ever more intelligent, ever more critical consumers.

Here's Steve introducing the iPod five years ago today. Nowadays he makes these sort of announcements in somewhat larger rooms.

Shortbus: Getting Off On Life*

As someone whose parents put a paper bag or blanket over my head during sex scenes and told me to count to 30 before coming out well into my adolesence, I was not expecting to see Shortbus--let alone actually enjoy it. Although John Cameron Mitchell's newest film has gained media buzz and public intrigue for being the movie that "shows real sex", it in fact most powerfully reaches out to those who view its subject matter with nervousness or apprehension. Shortbus is successful in making media images of sex more tasteful and accepted in public space, but not merely by putting this subject matter on the big screen. Rather, equipped with a solid script and great amateur cast, the film becomes a celebration of sex and human relationships as one of the most positive characteristics of humanity--not a subject warranting fear or censorship.

A New York sex club, idealized almost to the point of utopia, becomes the location where various small vignets collide. A couples therapist who has never had an orgasm, dominatrix sex worker and a gay couple who would not have otherwise met become intimately aware of the difficulties each person struggles to overcome and ultimately push one another along on the path to self discovery, healing and acceptance. Amidst sexual spectacle (a character sings the national anthem into another man's ass) are both poignant moments and hilarious comedy in awkward encounters. It will make you squirm in your seat, laugh out loud, and be touched by the incredible honesty with which the entire cast performs. If you were the person who was always painfully awkward about sex, the simplicitic and natural quality of sexual experiences and relationships made glaringly apparent in this film will make you leave the theater wondering whatever went awry in your life to make you think otherwise.

That Shortbus is set in New York seems not only a deliberate choice but a important dimension to the film. The question of what makes New Yorkers unique and draws people from around the world to this city is a persistent theme. Even if you don't romanticize or love New York to Woody Allen proportions, there is an undeniable pulse about the city that draws people in. Soaring animated shots of the Manhattan and Brookyln skyline that both open and close the film create a sense of wonderment and awe of the city in a sort of magical positivism that would affect a New York viewer differently and more deeply than someone in any other place. When media coverage of New York is constantly contextualized and rooted in the aftermath of 9/11, Mitchell has chosen to bring attention to the city's strong community of people that seem to glue together in weird ways, helping each other to move on despite life's obstacles. In one scene, a 20-something trust fund hipster questions his dominatrix about whether the U.S. should have a continued presence in Iraq. Mitchell communicates on screen that these are issues that can and should be given room for debate in a city that is by no means defeated.

*Title taken from New York Times review

Fuck Facts

The word "fuck" first appeared in Samuel Johnson's English dictionary in 1798, then promptly disappeared for 169 years.

In England, Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was banned until 1960 for its use of "fuck". And in Australia, a book describing the trial of Lawrence's publisher was also banned.

The French Connection clothing company was founded in 1969. In 1997, after launching their "fcuk" campaign, profits at the chain rose 81%.

One Laptop Per Child: No Child Left Behind for the Globally Minded

A recent New York Times article reports that Mr. Nicholas Negroponte, a computer researcher at MIT, has conceived of an idea called One Laptop Per Child in which schoolchildren from Libya would each receive a laptop computer cheaply manufactured in Taiwan for a price of US$100. Once set in motion as early as next month, Mr. Negroponte hopes to expand the project to countries that would include Chad, Rwanda, Nigeria and Cambodia. The Linux equipped computers (Gates has refused to offer Microsoft products on the cheap) will include wireless capabilities, a built-in webcam, and a handcrank for recharging the battery.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has never lacked brilliant minds (or bigger nerds). One needn’t consult Wikipedia to know that the school boasts an impressive list of distinguished alumni and faculty that have had enormous accomplishments. However, even as a prisoner of the cubicle kingdom, doomed to the mediocrity and monotony that comes with administrative jobs and an undergraduate degree, I’m left wondering how someone at MIT could so grossly oversimplify what is essentially a poverty alleviation program. Clearly Mr. Negroponte’s heart is in the right place—introducing technology to schoolchildren is beneficial to furthering the learning process when used within a sound educational curriculum and framework. But CHAD? A bit of simple browsing on the UNDP website shows that 66% of Chadians do not have sustainable access to an improved water source and 64% are living below the national poverty line (making Chad the 5th worst with respect to this measurement in the world). So someone from Chad may not be able to drink water without getting sick, but hey, let’s give them a laptop!

This article has left me wondering if perhaps Mr. Negroponte and President Bush are great pals. The No Child Left Behind Act seeks to respond to gross educational disparities and inadequate student performance in the United States with repeated official testing. The only thing that No Child Left Behind has succeeded in doing is announcing with each round of testing that America has failing schools and struggling students rather than implementing reforms that could promote real change. Mr. Negroponte, as a global citizen, has observed poverty in countless nations but implemented faulty Bush logic with appalling accuracy. Where President Bush has thrown millions of dollars at a problem through testing, this computer researcher from a bright academic institution is tossing webcams and Linux.

Many corporations and institutions have expressed interest in helping to facilitate the One Laptop Per Child initiative. And why not? It’s a tangible concept that can be easily executed and make a lot of people feel like they DID something about world poverty. Unfortunately, the implementation of such initiatives before working to establish basic health care, sanitation and education systems in which laptops would actually be helpful is not only fruitless but plain lazy. The creation of programs that make real SENSE in developing nations and complex socio-political climates is bound to be difficult. They will take creatively minded, smart individuals with a lot of patience and heart to device, finance, and implement. I’m left confused and disappointed as to how Mr. Negroponte, who must have at least half a brain to be at a place like MIT in the first place, can go to a country where there are three physicians for every 100,000 people and think that the first logical and most meaningful step towards improving their lives is the gift of computer technology.

Apparently if you can’t have clean water or health care, you need the next best thing: Google.

And HPV Vaccine Again

As I am not at work this is kind of a ghetto looking post... but this article reveals a KEY issue that will help establish whether or not the FDA is a partisan/influenced by religion organization. Also - be skeptical of the two concerns raised.

The first concern: While I agree it would be serious if a large number of women who were unknowlingly infected AND there was no way to test them AND then they ALL developed cancer as a result of the vaccine - I would suggest that the vaccine probably leads to a very small risk of increase. In addition, women CHOOSE to get the vaccine - therefore they are aware of the slight risk (we get into cars EVERY DAY KNOWING the risk that this has). Finally, wouldn't the increased risk by worth the HUGE numbers of women who would NOT get cancer because they would NOT contract HPV DUE to the vaccine??? (the vaccine has the potential to reduce the annual number of new cervical cancers worldwide to roughly 150,000, from the current 500,000, and cut global deaths from the cancer by more than two-thirds, to an estimated 90,000.) I know this is the whole 'do we sacrifice a few for the sake of the many?' and in this case my answer would be yes.

The second concern: The advantage for the four COULD BE offset by one of the other types it doesn't protect against. Two key words here - COULD BE. How much of the advantage are we talking? 10%? 20%? I am going to tell you right now - if someone told me that they had a vaccine that COULD protect me against HPV - even if it was only 30 or 40 percent more - I'd take it.

Finally - a concern that they did not mention in the article but I am sure some religious rights person will bring up is that having access to this vaccine will make women's behavior more risky. This is ludacris. Just take a moment to think about this: The argument that eliminating a SERIOUS HEALTH RISK will make more women have sex - so lets KEEP THE SERIOUS HEALTH RISK THAT KILLS THOUSANDS OF WOMEN - and hopefully scare a few into not having sexs (clearly those thousands were scared into it...). Um... THAT sounds like a plan to me. On top of that - having the vaccine does not eliminate ALL STD's - nor does it eliminate the fear of pregnancy. Seems to me that there are enough other 'fears' to keep women from having sex altogether - if there is ONE we can eliminate and SAVE LIVES (helllloooo pro-LIFE movement) lets do it!

Keep posted for the outcome on the FDA's decision!



Cervical Cancer Vaccine Seen As Safe (New York Times)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A vaccine that blocks infection by the four virus types that cause most cervical cancers and genital warts appears safe and effective, but may actually increase the chance of disease in some patients, according to Food and Drug Administration documents released Wednesday.

Merck & Co. seeks FDA approval for its Gardasil vaccine against four types of human papilloma virus, or HPV. Two of those four types are believed responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The cancer kills roughly 3,500 U.S. women a year; the other two types cause 90 percent of genital wart cases.

An FDA panel of outside experts is to meet Thursday and discuss whether to recommend that the agency approve the vaccine. The FDA isn't required to follow the advice of its expert panels but usually does.

According to briefing documents released ahead of the meeting, the panel should discuss various items of concern only if its members first agree that studies show the vaccine is safe and effective. That suggests the FDA favors its approval.

Merck said the vaccine has the potential to reduce the annual number of new cervical cancers worldwide to roughly 150,000, from the current 500,000, and cut global deaths from the cancer by more than two-thirds, to an estimated 90,000.

An FDA review of the results of studies on the vaccine found two important concerns, according to the documents released ahead of Thursday's meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products advisory committee.

(THE FIRST - be SKEPTICAL) The first is that the vaccine may lead to an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor among patients already infected by any of the four virus types at the time they receive the vaccine, and whose immune systems have not cleared the virus from their bodies.

(THE SECOND - be SKEPTICAL) The second concern is that any advantage the vaccine provides in protecting against the four virus types could be offset by infection by any of the multiple other types of HPV that the vaccine does not cover, according to the FDA documents.

FDA staff also asked that the committee examine five cases where children with birth defects were born to women who had received the vaccine around the time of conception.

Merck developed the vaccine and tested it in both women and men, but Thursday's discussion is expected to focus on its use in preventing HPV-related disease in women.

An FDA decision is expected by June 8. Should it approve it, the national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide later that month whether to endorse routine vaccination with the vaccine. The committee's HPV vaccine workgroup is recommending the vaccine be given to girls 11 and 12, and the committee will consider recommendations for females 13 to 26.




http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Cancer-Vaccine.html?ex=1148529600&en=40c5258b5b78c03e&ei=5070&emc=eta1

On Purity Balls and Chastity Pledges

Recent discussion on my cousin's blog as well as an article sent by a good friend (thanks pete!) suggested that maybe discussion about the absolute lunacy of these kinds of events was previously limited to circles of feminist friends interested in sex education and women's health... So I figured I would add this article what appears to be a growing public interest.

I think Mark Morford pretty much sums it up in this excerpt:

'Premarital sex is evil. Female sexuality must be, as ever, contained, repressed, shoved deep down lest it tempt men to sin like gleeful pagans licking ice cream from the pierced nipples of the devil. Girls do not know how to handle their own genitalia and therefore must be taught -- by their fathers, no less -- how to dilute their sexual power in order to attract a sexually unqualified, God-fearing husband. You know, same as it ever was.

Very well. Let us now trace the path of imminent cultural destruction: Virgin girl has zero experience with the joys of her own body, with orgasm, with men, with sex toys or shower heads or good gynecological gizmongery. She then marries a man who will very likely have not the slightest clue (as he has had the same dreadful sexual miseducation as our fair virgin) as to what to do with a woman's body, who will, by most all accounts, be unable to tell an erogenous zone from an elbow, a clitoris from a belly button.

Voilà, the standard recipe for emotional, physical and spiritual catastrophe, for roughly 17 years of vague marital misery capped off by divorce and much therapy and four unhappy children and the profound and aching need located somewhere deep beneath the pelvic bone to try something, anything new and different and sexually liberating.

Let's just say it outright: The superiority of virginity myth, it is a massive, underreported disaster. It is a ridiculous and exhausting misconception that must be eradicated like a cancer. Perhaps French philosopher Voltaire said it best, nearly 300 years ago: "It is one of the great superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that virginity could be a virtue." So true.'

And just in case you still think sex education is bad, some facts:

'No wonder over half of all teens who take any sort of virginity pledge end up breaking the ridiculous vow within a year (says a new Harvard study), and fully 88 percent end up having sex before marriage anyway. What's more, such silly pledges only result in more oral and anal sex among teens who try, vainly, to adhere. They also marry younger, have fewer sexual partners (read: less skill) and yet have exactly the same rate of STDs as kids who are smart enough to avoid such pointless pledges in the first place.'

The author sums up the article with a suggestion for better all encompassing sex education
Can anyone say OWL? (sex education program promoted by Unitarians)

An even better laugh...

A great article - and even better links - to one of the best 'stand-up' pieces I've heard in a long time... Colbert tells it like it is. I don't have time to comment - but this is definitely worth the FULL listen... (thanks to Pete for the link!)

http://blogs.citypages.com/ctg/2006/04/the_truthiness.asp

One of my favorites...

To Senator John McCain: "So wonderful to see you coming back into the Republican fold. I've actually got a summer house in South Carolina. Look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University."

Yeeesss....

a good laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipJTqCbETog&eurl=

I promise.