When you grow up

Sorting. Selling. Packing. Moving. iBook freaking. Posts will likely be sporadic for the next couple of weeks until things settle down a little and the computer decides to behave. (For the first time in 1.5 years, my computer is freezing and crashing; I have no idea why this is but it makes me very, very unhappy. I'll wipe the hard drive and start over when I get a chance...)

For now, here's a question for everyone in law school or headed there soon: How long have you thought you wanted to practice law?

The question arises from Gary A. Munneke and William D. Henslee's article on using a legal education for a non-legal career [link via jd2b a few weeks ago]. Munneke and Henslee write:

No one ever completely escapes that childhood question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" As long as the answer to this question is "a practicing lawyer," it will be difficult to find satisfaction outside the practice of law. Similarly, if the answer to the question never has been "a practicing lawyer," it will be difficult to find happiness within. An honest self-appraisal focusing on your fundamental aspirations in life is useful. As simple as it sounds, law graduates who choose a nonlegal career because that's what they want to do are most likely to succeed.

I'm headed to law school, yet I'm not sure I've ever wanted to be a practicing lawyer. I know I certainly never thought so as a child, and I'm far from sure about it now. Thoughts?

Posted 06:12 PM | Comments (4) | law school

Dreaming Law

Last night I had what may have been my first dream about being a lawyer. I'd say it was heavily influenced by the fact that I just finished reading Brush With the Law because it involved drugs, biking, and lawsuits. It also involved grading papers, so my subconscious hasn't left the old life behind quite yet. Of course, in my dream I righted wrongs and saved people from exploitation by wielding my knowledge of law like a righteous sword. Too bad it was just a dream.

Posted 07:50 AM | Comments (3) | law school

Yale Bomb

A bomb exploded at Yale Law School yesterday. According to this NY Times story, the bomb was originally either in the student mailboxes or in a classroom. Or maybe the classroom was next to the mailboxes? (Is the NY Times really slipping, or is it just me?)

So why would a bomb be exploding at Yale? A disgruntled student, perhaps? A Unabomber revival of some sort? Nobody seems to know much more than that it was a bomb:

``We suspect it was some kind of device that caused the explosion,'' [New Haven Mayor John] DeStefano told reporters gathered more than a block away from the law school building. Asked about any evidence that the explosion was meant to kill or terrorize law school students or faculty, Mayor DeStefano said: ``We have no reason to believe that it is anything other than what it is. It doesn't appear as if any message was being sent.''

Um, I find it hard to believe that someone would make, plant, and detonate a bomb w/out hoping to send some kind of message. How stupid does Mr. DeStefano think we are?

Posted 06:27 AM | law school

Still Reloading 2

Sure there are other, more important things going on, but I'm too preoccupied with the tasks of getting rid of all my worldly possessions and moving to think seriously about serious stuff. (Do you feel safer? How about now? Yeah, me neither.)

So did you hear about that new movie? I think it's called "The Matrix Reloaded" or something like that. Gtexts was not impressed, but he offers a link to Useless Matrix Trivia by Melissa Maerz. Somehow I'm not surprised that a serial murderer dug "The Matrix"; as Snoopy says (long story): "If you remain calm, you just don't have all the facts." However, I wish someone would have told Mr. Boyd that killing people is never an appropriate way to express your lack of, um, calm...

Gtexts also notes that some hackers approve of Trinity's skilz, while others scoff. Meanwhile, DG says Ebert got "Reloaded" right. I, too, enjoyed Ebert's review, and recommend it. Still, I can't see how Ebert can claim that "Reloaded" promotes Neo to a "Christ figure in training" -- the film explicitly demotes Neo from that position. ("The One was never meant to end anything. It was just another system of control." Translation: religion, prophecy, faith = systems of control, not solutions to Zion's problems.) But still, Ebert concludes w/a clever little allusion:

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time tells the story of a cosmologist whose speech is interrupted by a little old lady who informs him that the universe rests on the back of a turtle. "Ah, yes, madame," the scientist replies, "but what does the turtle rest on?" The old lady shoots back: "You can't trick me, young man. It's nothing but turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down."

Fun.

Posted 11:23 AM | Comments (2) | ai movies

Still Reloading

Professor Yin has a few good posts on "The Matrix" (also here) and "Reloaded." He seems primarily concerned with technical and plot questions, and he has a lot of good ones. But hey, it's sci-fi, I'm obviously willing to give it some serious "suspension of disbelief." The films are certainly more fun that way.

Professor Yin also points to this collection of essays about the first film and various strands of philosophy. Just FYI.

Tom Tomorrow jumps smartly on the Matrix bandwagon with his latest comic: The Republican Matrix:

What should we do today, fellas? Any damn thing we want, George.

(Calling all Democrats: Find your freaking Neo, and do it fast. Which reminds me of something L. said about "Reloaded" —what Neo and everyone else in Zion need to realize is that they have more power than they think, if only they would assert it. This could not be more true for the Dems.)

And don't miss Salon's review of "Reloaded"—it's definitely one of the better reviews of the film. It suggests another reason many people are disappointed in "Reloaded":

It's a sadder, wiser, more grown-up movie than its predecessor. It was made, one might almost say, for a sadder, wiser, more grown-up world.

Yeah, or it may just be a cool kung-fu movie. But then, what is Cornel West doing there?

Reached by telephone in his office in Princeton, Dr. West said that he and the Wachowski brothers had come together in "acknowledging the full-fledged and complex humanity of black people, which is a relatively new idea in Hollywood given pervasive racist stereotypes." And, indeed, "The Matrix Reloaded" gives prominent roles and screen time to African-American stars like Laurence Fishburne and Jada Pinkett Smith. A more tantalizing connection seems to be Dr. West's notion of the jazz freedom fighter that concludes his book "Race Matters." He writes: "I use the term `jazz' here not so much as a term for a musical art form as for a mode of being in the world, an improvisational mode of protean, fluid and flexible dispositions toward reality suspicious of `either/or viewpoints.' "

This seems to jibe with the direction that Neo, the character played by Mr. Reeves, is taking, as he discovers that the world of the Matrix is not operating by fixed rules but is something more permeable and uncertain. Dr. West also pointed out that "the second Matrix movie actually critiques the idea of the first. It's suspicious of salvation narratives. It's deeply anti-dogmatic. The critics haven't figured that out yet, but the scholars will get to it."

Hmmm, really? Oh, and one more thing from Dr. West:

He has some advice for the audiences going to see the movie: "You've got to look beneath the special effects."  

See, I'm just following doctor's orders. ;-)

Posted 10:14 PM | ai movies

Locke

I know I said I was matrixed out, but this is good: Rick Klau suggests that Commander Locke's character refers to John Locke, the 17th century (Enlightenment) philosopher known for his beliefs in empiricism (all knowledge comes to us through experience) and the tabula rasa (idea that humans begin life as blank slates and then acquire knowledge through experience). Locke is known for many other things (social contract, natural rights and natural law, what else?), but I'm not sure if any of them have any connection to Cmdr. Locke's character in "Reloaded." However, empiricism would explain why Cmdr. Locke simply does not believe in "the prophesy" that Morpheus lives by. The fact that Locke's defense plan fails so miserably suggests the film is being critical of empiricism. Maybe. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud with all this, you know.

(DG wonders whether "the movie was really deep or if people are making too much out of it." This is a good question, and one we should ask of any book, movie, or other cultural production. Is Ulysses really deep or have people made too much out of it? The thing is, cultural products become "great" or "classic" or influential by nothing more than consensus—a critical mass simply agrees that they're great, and so they are. I think the Matrix films are great; perhaps if enough other people agree, the films will become "canonical" (or classic or whatever you want to call it) and their smart allusions and social commentary will become common knowledge. Worse things could happen.)

Posted 11:59 AM | Comments (1) | ai movies

Reloaded Rehashed

If you just can't get enough off "Reloaded," Rotten Tomatoes has a lively forum devoted to the movie. There's a lot of junk in there, but also a few provocative theories and comments. Highlights include:

A transcript of Neo's conversation w/the Architect. (How did they get that? Someone must have had a recorder of some kind in the theater, which isn't a bad idea, actually....)

Various theories about the film—high signal to noise ratio. A major controversy seems to focus on whether Zion is a "matrix within the matrix." People are going nuts about this.

I didn't think I'd be saying this so soon, but I'm about Matrixed to the max, right now. "Hey, it just sounds to me like you need to unplug, man. You know, get some R and R." Yeah, that's it.

Posted 11:03 PM | ai movies

"Reloaded"

The following are some thoughts after seeing "Reloaded" a second time. I've tried to recall the major plot scenes and explain their significance as I understand it. Yes, there are spoilers. If you haven't seen it, don't click for "more."

First, I think one of the best things we learn from "Reloaded" is that the messianic plot is a red herring. As Neo says after his talk w/the Architect: "The One was never meant to end anything. It was just another system of control." Take that, Mr. Thank God. (No offense to believers among us; regardless of wether its a system of control, religion certainly serves important functions in many societies and lives.)

Another thing I learned from this film is that most reviews of it are worthless. Very few people can say many smart things about a movie after seeing it only once. All you get are first impressions, and w/a move like "Reloaded," it's hard to trust those.

The major scenes in terms of plot are:

Neo and the Counsellor on the engineering level of Zion: The counsellor says that this is how people are: We don't care how things work, so long as they work. This is what makes the matrix possible; as Cipher said in the first film, "ignorance is bliss." Hence, the Counsellor seems to suggest that even in Zion people are half asleep. The counsellor also asks, "What is control?" His point seems to be that the struggle w/which Neo should be concerned is not that of man vs. machine (it wasn't in the first film, either, despite what reviewers said); Neo must realize that there is a man/machine symbiosis at work. Perhaps. But the Counsellor is definitely playing on the threads about choice and human agency that come up again in the scene w/the Merovingian (and elsewhere). These themes are also important to his examples of things he doesn't understand, such as the water filtration system in Zion. The Counsellor says he doesn't understand the means, but he does understand the ends of these things. (To use the Merovingian's terms, he has the why.) The Counsellor hopes he'll learn the end (or goal/purpose) of Neo's power, even if he never understands its means. Thus, "Reloaded" is a quest film: Neo's quest for purpose. (What's it all for!?)

Morpheus' speech to the people of Zion: He's not afraid because he remembers where he's come from. Hence, Morpheus is lecturing about the importance of history. This echoes Frederic Jameson's "prime directive" to "always historicize." (However, since Morpheus' vision is later questioned—he believed in the prophecy, and that seems like it was a mistake—this scene might be meant in a Baudrillardian, post-historical, post-Marxist sense. Yes, history is important, but even that is not enough anymore.)

Link and Zee: A plot hole appears in the scene w/Link and Zee as Zee explains why she fears the Neb—it took two of her brothers, Tank and Dozer. We know what happened to Dozer from the first film: Cipher killed him. But what happened to Tank? Perhaps this is explained by the animated short, "Final Flight of the Osiris," which also supposedly explains how Neo gets a certain letter. "Osiris" apparently premiered in March before screenings of a movie called "Dreamcatcher." (This fairly detailed review doesn't mention anything about Tank.) Did anyone see it?

The Oracle: We learn that she is a program. (Does this ruin the metaphor of taking the red pill? In other words, does it mean that taking the red pill is just breaking through to a different layer of deception and control? I think Yes, but that doesn't ruin the metaphor because the red pill level is more enlightened (and therefore more empowered) than the blue pill level.) She tells us that people have to work together to get anything done (hence, the Nietzschean superman thing is out). And we also learn that all the world's anomalies (ghosts, angels, vampires, werewolves, etc.) are the system trying to assimilate programs gone awry. Agent Smith is such a program. (Real world parallel: Think how corporations use things like MTV to co-opt and commodify counter culture. In the '90s we got "alternative" music and that seemed rebellious and a little anarchic until it got into heavy rotation on MTV and "alternative" bands started selling millions of records: "alternative" was a program gone awry, but it was quickly assimilated. The counterculture of the 1960s is another vivid example—it threatened the status quo for a while, but was quickly co-opted and commodified—Flower Power is packaged and sold by Nike and Coca Cola. Now we have "tenured radicals" and other baby boomer demographics to which the system targets specific messages and commodities. I'm sure you could cite many more examples of this.) Finally, the Oracle tells us what all men with power want: More power. (Is she suggesting that power always leads to nihilism?)

Agent Smith: The scene where Neo battles a hundred Agent Smiths serves at least two purposes. First, it's a cool action scene. Yay. But more important, it explains what's happened to Smith: He's unplugged, no longer an agent of the system, but now without purpose because as he says, there is no purpose other than slavery to the system—there's no escape. He has become a nihilist—the archetypal nihilist, in fact. He has no reason for doing anything, except to satisfy his desire to do it. It's all about me, me, me, and me, too. But just as the messianic plot is a red herring, so too, is Agent Smith's nihilism—it doesn't get him anywhere or do anyone any good. The people he converts to his nihilism (by turning them into copies of himself) also only cause trouble. It's also important to note that Agent Smith tries to make a connection between himself and Neo, and in a way they are similar: Like Smith, Neo sees no definite purpose to his actions. The difference is that Neo still hopes and searches for purpose, while Smith has given up.

Lock and the Counsel: This scene (featuring two big lines by Cornel West) suggests that Zion is duplicating the control of the matrix. Lock says he wishes he could understand the counsel's choice, but the counsel says he does not need to understand to obey. This is true of the matrix, as well. An interesting side note: Niobe identifies herself as Captain of the Logos. She's Captain of the Word. This signals the film's concern w/language, or as Foucault would say, discourse.

The Merovingian: (What does it mean?) At the beginning of the scene, Neo says there's something strange about the code of the building and everything—it doesn't look right. Although he doesn't know it, this is because the code is old: They've entered an old, outdated, or early version of the Matrix here. The Merovingian is a program gone awry and he's somehow kept a bunch of old programs with him. Notably, all the old code characters have European accents—it's the "old world," after all. (Note also that the way the Merovingian praises French kind of gives the finger to all those "freedom fries" French-bashing Americans who see the film, doesn't it?) The Merovingian says many important things, one of which is that choice is an illusion created by people with power, for those without power. He also explains that "Why" is power. This is Foucauldian in that Foucault deconstructed the cliche that "knowledge is power" by showing that knowledge is not an absolute, but rather a social construct. A certain piece of information is only considered "knowledge" because we agree that it is. Therefore, it is not enough to know Fact A, we must also know why Fact A is important, otherwise our knowing has no power attached to it. This is the dilemma of Morpheus, Neo and Trinity: They know that they're supposed to be doing things, but they don't know why; therefore, they are powerless. (Tangent: Think for a moment about the "War on Terror"—it's action w/out reason, it has no why—it does not understand what it's fighting or what its ultimate goal is. Not effective. I haven't read it yet, but I'll bet that's what Baudrillard says in this book.) So perhaps the Merovingian is another caution against nihilism—our actions must be reasonable. I don't know what to say about all the cause and effect stuff in this scene, except that perhaps it has something to do w/a critique of teleological thinking. Anyone?

The Architect: The architect debunks the messianic plot and explains more about the origin of the matrix and the fact that it required a woman (another program, actually, who may or may not have been the Oracle) to figure out how to make it palatable to humans. As L. explains it via poststructuralism: The original matrix relied upon coercive power—it forced everyone to do as it required. The revised matrix includes the illusion of choice, so it functions via productive power—it produces cooperative subjects by giving them the illusion that they're producing themselves by making a choice (that isn't actually a choice). (But if this is the case, then doesn't that mean Zion is also a program? Yes, I think so, which explains how/why Neo is able to stop the sentinels near the end of "Reloaded." We'll see.)

[Aside: The concepts of coercive vs. productive power are also helpful in understanding why terrorism (and specifically 9-11) doesn't work. L. could explain this better than I can, but I'll take a stab at it: The people who crashed the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon were using spectacle and physical force to try to change the system of western capitalism with which they find fault. We immediately recognized the spectacle; however, the western world rejected this violence—we rejected "the program" because it didn't offer us a choice. Instead, the system (western capitalism) assimilated the violence of 9-11 by giving it a new meaning ("they hate us because we're free") and using it to justify wars against the system's enemies. And the system of western capitalism does this by flooding us with the illusion of choice: "Should I buy the white one or the pink one?" "Should I vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum?"]

The Architect also explains the "remainder," the 1% who won't accept the program even when given the choice. These people instead choose Zion (once they learn about it). Again, this seems to be a false choice; Zion seems to be just another program, another facet of the matrix. Still, the concept of the remainder gives us an explanation for why some people are searching ("It's the question that drives you.You know the question, just as I did."), while others are perfectly content to live in the matrix. L. helpfully pointed out the similarities between "Reloaded"'s use of the remainder and the way Baudrillard writes about it in Simulacra and Simulation. Baudrillard writes:

Who can say if the remainder of the social is the residue of the nonsocialized, or if it is not the social itself that is the remainder, the gigantic waste product ... of what else? Of a process, which even if it were to completely disappear and had no name except the social would nevertheless only be its remainder. The residue can be completely at the level of the real. When a system has absorbed everything, when one has added everything up, when nothing remains, the entire sum turns to the remainder and becomes the remainder. (144)

Does this give us some clue about "Revolutions"? Perhaps. But it does seem that we are reaching a point like this in our own world. Note the degradation of the public sphere—education, health care, all social services—as budgets get slashed. We think instrumentally in terms of profit and loss; social services don't fit into that equation very well, and so are peripheral, a remainder. In fact all of the social world—our interactions w/family and friends, our entertainment, any "free" time we have—is a remainder. The system is work, productivity, profit, the economy, etc. Everything else is just left over, extraneous matter that the system would eliminate if it could figure out how to do so. (If you doubt this, ask yourself if your employer would eliminate coffee breaks and lunch hours if he/she could get away with it. All the employers I've ever had certainly would.)

Finally, the Architect sets up a choice for Neo—either be the savior of humanity, or choose love and be responsible for the death of all humans. But even as he poses these options, the Architect seems to know what Neo will do, meaning that this again seems like only an illusion of choice. This is one of the major questions for "Revolutions": Did Neo just do exactly as expected/programmed? Or did he somehow surprise the system? The Architect also notes that hope is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of humans. It's the greatest strength because, no matter how bad things get, we keep hoping they'll get better and that we can contribute to that improvement. Hope is our greatest weakness because it acts as a screen for so much of the "evil" in the world—we see bad things happening but refuse to believe they can be as bad as they seem because our hope clouds our judgment. ("Gee, it sure looks like this war on Iraq is going to be a bad thing, but I hope I'm wrong; I guess I'll just trust my government and hope that it's doing the right thing.")

After the Architect: Neo explains that the One was never meant to end anything. (Note: As many people have noted, "Neo" is an anagram of "one," but that, too, seems like a red herring. "Neo" is also a prefix meaning "recent or new," and in "Revolutions" we see that Neo is not "the one," but he is nevertheless something new. Neo-poststructural, perhaps?)

Morpheus is shocked to learn that "the prophecy" may have been a lie. Morpheus is a teleological thinker—he uses "ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena." This has served him well up to this point, just as it served humanity well until the 20th century. However, for many people the death of god meant the end of teleologies and grand narratives. Yet, that leaves the question: What do we put in their place? That is a question Morpheus will have to deal w/in "Revolutions"—how is he going to understand his world if the framework he's always depended on is suddenly proven invalid?

So what does "Revolutions" hold? If, we follow L.'s reading, the two films have thus far stuck closely to poststructuralist lines; however, the problem w/poststructuralism is that it hasn't really figured out what to do now that god is dead and there's no getting outside of power. The trailer for "Revolutions" (which comes on after about 6-8 minutes of credits, if you stick around patiently) doesn't offer too many clues, but it does seem to bring it down to a battle between Neo and "him." This will be less than satisfying for many reasons, but I'll reserve judgment until I see it in November. (It will be out the 5th or the 7th. I'm thinking 7th since the 5th is a Wednesday.)

One more thing about the reviews and the bullk of the discussion I've seen about both Matrix films: There's lots of talk about philosophy and religious "mumbo jumbo," but very few people (outside of academia) talk about Foucault, Baudrillard, or any of the other huge linguists, cultural critics, and critical theorists who inform these films (for example, Saussure and Derrida are two thinkers without whom these films simply wouldn't be possible). Nonetheless, as important as religion and philosophy are to these films, they ultimately seem to serve as background to these other, more obscure structures of thought. The fact that so few people talk about linguistics, structuralism, poststructuralism, etc., is evidence of the problem of the Humanities in the 21st century—no one understands what academics in these fields are doing, and too few academics take the time or make the effort to bring their ideas to a wider audience. This is one of the great accomplishments of the Matrix films: They attempt to translate complex and obscure ideas into something millions of movie-goers can access. Millions of people want to see these movies, and they do see them, and think about them, and talk about them. The experience—the viewing and thinking and talking—may not change much for the vast majority of them, but at least the Wachowski brothers are trying.

My friend J. also pointed out that it's somewhat ironic that someone decided to attach the "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" trailer to "Reloaded." As the terminator himself says in that trailer, he is an obsolete technology. I mean, the Matrix films do the struggle between man and machines so much better than terminator ever did. Except for the fact that the trailer is being shown w/"Reloaded," there's no reason sci-fi/cyberpunk stories have to fit together, but I suppose the terminator series could be something like a precursor of "The Matrix"—the battles that took place before the machines gained the ability to capture and "program" humans. The terminator series appears to function on a metaphor of coercive, or modern, power (force and violence), while the matrix series is concerned with productive, or postmodern, power (the control comes from within the subject being controlled). Yubbledew also functions on a coercive metaphor, while his advisers (e.g., Karl Rove) seem to understand productive power quite well. But I'll leave that to another day...

Posted 10:51 AM | Comments (3) | ai movies

"Revisited"

Books on which The Matrix was based, according to "The Matrix Revisted" dvd:

• Out of Control by Kevin Kelly


• Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard


• Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology by Dylan Evans and Oscar Zarata

Laurence Fishburn on "The Matrix":

I've said to a lot of people that a movie this smart—it's amazing that it got made because it is so smart.

Posted 10:49 AM | ai books ai movies

Simulacra and Simulation

The matrix has us. Your president is a simulacrum, and so was the saving of Private Lynch [link via Karlin Lillington via Scripting News].

More on the Lynch story:

• The real 'Saving Pte. Lynch'


• So who really did save Private Lynch?

Posted 09:34 AM | general politics

Times 6?

"Reloaded" was awesome, but I'm going to see it again tonight before I say too much more. Don't believe the reviews that say it's all flash and no dash. Think poststructualism (and here), Baudrillard (and also specifically his chapter in Simulacra and Simulation on "The Remainder" and his more recent book, Impossible Exchange ), Nietzsche (particularly his ideas of the superman (and here) and nihilism (and here)), and Foucault who said:

My role - and that is too emphatic a word - is to show people that they are much freer than they feel, that people accept as truth, as evidence, some themes which have been built up at a certain movement during history, and that this so-called evidence can be criticized and destroyed. To change something in the minds of people - that’s the role of an intellectual. (Martin et al. 1988:10)

Foucault permeates both matrix films. Without giving away too much, I think it's safe to say that "Reloaded" shows us that there is no "outside" to the matrix; yet, it also suggests that resistance to the matrix is not futile—a better world is possible. In some ways, the series is becoming a pop-culture, video textbook of poststructural theory—with kung-fu! How can that not rock?

Ed note: Many of the connections mentioned above come directly from L., the brilliant woman in my life who knows poststructuralism and marxism like most people know their own names. She specifically mentioned Baudrillard's chapter on the "remainder" and his book, Impossible Exchange. She also made the connection between Neo's "superman thing" and Nietzsche's superman. Finally, the Foucauldian analysis of the inside/outside of the matrix (and what the film is saying about that) is all her. I've tried in vain since I met her to get her to write things like this down and try to get them published—or at least start a weblog for it (she almost never sees a movie w/out walking away w/a brilliant critique)—but to no avail. I'll keep trying....

Posted 09:32 AM | ai movies

Coppertops

Tomorrow is the day. Or, if you're in a major media market, today is the day. As Salon puts it:

Four years of waiting are finally over for "Matrix" fans. This Thursday will mark the simultaneous release of "The Matrix Reloaded," the first of two sequels set to hit movie screens this year, and "Enter the Matrix," a companion video game. The second wave will arrive on June 3, with the release of a DVD titled "The Animatrix," containing a series of nine animated film shorts set in the world of the Matrix. The DVD of "Reloaded" is expected to follow in late October, clearing the way for the release of "The Matrix Revolutions," the third and final installment of the "Matrix" saga, in early November.

But while the press goes googy over the onslaught of Matrix merchandise, it not surprisingly has very little to say about what—besides guns and kung-fu—makes "The Matrix" such a brilliant cultural artifact. I was going to point out a big windy rant to explain what I mean by that, but instead I'll just point you to Jane Dark's Reloaded Questions, which says most of what I wanted to say. After running through a list of the many allusions that comprise the world of "The Matrix"—i.e.: messianism, gnosticism, metaphysical and existential conundrums— Dark says all of those are neat, but not quite the point. Instead, it's all about power (in all senses of the word):

When I asked Laurence Fishburne, who plays Morpheus, if he followed the first flick's philosophy, he announced he'd mused plenty in his life about "all that, you know, spiritual fucking voodoo fucking mumbo jumbo kind of shit." He said this in his Othello-goes-drinking voice, tinged with the gentle irony of someone who has actually gazed long and hard at his navel and come out the other side. For him, the religious reading wasn't the film's hard core. As he put it, "The idea that machines are using us for batteries is pretty fucking severe."

Marx thought so, though in his matrix the master class of machines was just called the master class, the enslaved humans just the workers, and battery power was called labor. Same shit, different name (though not very different: Matrix is just Marxist avant la lettre s).
...

This is the dystopia on offer in The Matrix. The war between intelligent machines and humans is a sci-fi cliché, no less than hey-this-could-all-be-a-simulation. What the Brothers got is that the masters of reality don't want to destroy us. They want us jacked directly into the economy, stupid, and they want it 24-7. The concept of "the matrix" might stand for abstractions like "ideology" or "the spectacle," but it resembles more concretely the endgame of millennial merger mania—what happens when all the corporations of the world become one seamless super-entity within which you labor, eat, make love, pay rent ( The Truman Show offered a different version of the same surmise). The evolution from Warner Bros. to AOL Time Warner required only a few years of corporate copulation. From AOL Time Warner to the matrix—it's just a kiss away.

Dark obviously took the red pill. I'm guessing "Reloaded" will confirm the accuracy of Dark's reading of "The Matrix"—at least I hope it does.

Spoiler Alert: Near the end of her article, Dark also gives a few little details about "Reloaded," so if you haven't seen it yet and want to do so w/out any spoilage, skip the last couple of paragraphs of Dark's piece.

Posted 05:54 PM | ai movies

Ultimate Contradiction

If there was ever an argument for maintaining a robust system of social services, it's natural disasters. Thousands of people have been affected by tornadoes and flooding in recent weeks, many losing their homes and businesses. Should they all be left to fend for themselves? Does anyone begrudge the victims of natural disasters the money they'll get from state and federal governments to help them rebuild their lives. Taxes fund social services that we need to maintain a healthy society. That's why this makes no sense at all:

President Bush finished off a two-day, three-state campaign for his half-trillion-dollar tax cuts this afternoon with a stop in a driving rain to see the damage in Pierce City, a town about 45 miles southwest of here that was devastated last week when a tornado tore through its center.

The story goes on to say that Bush talked a lot about god and prayer, then promised financial aid to those who lost everything. How can this man demand tax cuts even as he promises more spending? How stupid does he think Americans are? (Answer: Very.) Those people in Missouri and other midwestern states are going to need to pray hard, because Bush is doing everything he can to make sure there's no way their state or federal governments will be able to help them rebuild their lives. Isn't "faith" a beautiful thing? "Dear god, thank you for sending these tornadoes to destroy everything I've ever known and loved. Now please help me rebuild everything because the people in my society don't seem to care about anything but themselves, so without you I'm pretty much on my own down here. Thanks."

Posted 05:39 PM | general politics

1L Externship How-To

Here's how one Mid-top-tier 1L got an externship with a federal judge in his/her city of intended practice:

I found the list of federal judges in the city I wanted on another law school's website. I wrote a cover letter, only personalizing with name and address. On December 1, the first day 1Ls can contact employers, I sent 60 judges packets containing: a) cover letter, b) resume, c) grad school transcript, and d) a writing sample from my legal writing class. I received 7-8 interview offers and a few "send me your grades when you get them and we'll see." I scheduled the interviews for Xmas break, flew out there, and got an offer in my first interview merely because the judge knew someone who enjoyed their time at my UG. I accepted on the spot, and cancelled the other interviews.

For all 1L job hunt stuff--judge or firm--I think the key is to start preparing in September or October: generating your lists, getting your materials together, etc. You don't want to deal with this stuff during midterms. When December 1 rolled around, I just had to drop the envelopes in the mail. Others in my class hadn't even considered the summer yet and had less luck. Many still don't have jobs.

Sounds like a plan. Many other comments in the thread agree that getting application packets out early (Dec 1) is key. [Link via jd2b.]

Posted 12:23 PM | law school

Catsup

What a strange word that is, "catsup." It sounds funny, and it's spelled funny. How do you say it? Some people say it like "catch-up," which is what I'm doing now. The following are links I don't have time to really comment on, but which are worth posting anyway:

• Earth to Bill Gates: Thank You—I saw the NOW program last Friday and I'll be damned if it didn't make even me, a hardened anti-M$ partisan, think twice about refusing to give my software dollars to M$. (But Gates still didn't pay for his coffee [link via Scripting News.
• TV social experiment involving student ends—Still more proof that more money is not the complete solution to problems w/public education. For those of you who played LSAT games some time in the recent past, this story shows that money is necessary but not sufficient for a good education.
• Type-Ho's—It must be hard to be a legal secretary.
• Law Review: Worth it or not?—A must-read for people unsure of whether they'll pursue a spot on their law review. Don't skip the comments. [link via jd2b, I think.]
• Senate broadens terror surveillance law—This is not good news.
• Democrats flee Texas, freeze legislature—This also does not seem like good news—neither the Dems leaving or Delay's open attempt to rig the 2004 election in the Republicans' favor. If we thought American democracy could survive the gross influence peddling that is campaign finance, the debacle of election 2000, and unending wars on terrorism that are used to justify what increasingly looks like an unending war on civil liberties (not to mention a corporate press with goals contradictory to those of democracy), we might have to think again.
• Verizon to turn pay phones into WiFi hot spots—This, on the other hand, does seem like good news.

Posted 12:22 PM | Comments (1) | life generally

Academic Blogging

Speaking of Professor Cooper, his recent post on academic blogging looks at the pros and cons of blogging as a law professor. Coming from a different part of the academy (English), I'd say his reflections are correct, as are the comments he quotes from Kieran Healy. In a bit of synchronicity, Scripting News recently explained why academics should blog—and why their institutions should encourage them to do so:

First, know that universities thrive on having their experts visible outside the university. Not just publishing in academic journals, which most alumni don't read, but being called in as experts on radio talk shows, esp NPR. That's how you reach into their wallets, show them why they should be proud of their alma mater. Pride gets the money flowing.

So how do you get your professors on the radar, as acknowledged experts who can communicate to everyday people? With a weblog of course. And then realize that other bloggers (like me!) are consumers of expertise. We need experts to turn to just like the radio guys do. So there's lots of value in staking out the still largely virgin territory of expertise flowing through weblogs.

It makes perfect sense to me. In fact, academics would be the best bloggers for two reasons: First, they're writers. Sure, a lot of them write abstract, hard to read crap, but perhaps blogging would force them to be more clear and concise. (We could hope.) Second, they're experts in something that the rest of the world probably knows very little about. Many of the best blogs come from just such people—people with knowledge and perspectives that would be hard to find anywhere else. But, not surprisingly, I predict academics will be slow to take up blogging—at least academics outside of law. They'll think they're above it, that it's not "serious" enough for them. I tried to encourage a professor of mine—a huge luminary in his field—to take blogging seriously about a year ago, and he just scoffed and said "it's just like a discussion board. It's a fad. Besides, no one will ever read those things." Perhaps he's right, but perhaps he should also consider the increasing cultural, social, and political irrelevance of the humanities before he dismisses an opportunity to reach a wider public. Academia is pointless if the work done inside the "ivory tower" never gets out of its hallowed halls. If academics would work harder to make more than a dozen people care about or understand what they're doing, maybe they wouldn't find themselves panicked about the future of their disciplines.

Yes, that is what you call a tangent. I'll stop now.

Posted 06:58 PM | meta-blogging

Cooped Congratulations

Congratulations to Jeff Cooper at Cooped Up for a great year of blogging. Professor Cooper is a daily read for me (even though he doesn't always update daily), and I would certainly miss his measured and well-written opinions on everything from points of law to the state of contemporary culture. He's also quite fascinated with some sport (baseball, I think), and with wine, but you can just skip those posts if you want—Professor Cooper won't mind. ;-)

Question: What's up w/lawyers and sports? Is it just me, or are a high percentage of lawyers fairly intensely interested in some sport or another? And if it's not just me, then what's the connection between law and sports? Is it just something to talk about to take the mind off of law, or what?

Posted 06:42 PM | Comments (2) | law school meta-blogging

Big Media Trouble

Wow, it's a banner day for bad news about the U.S. media. The FCC has released its plans to deregulate the television industry:

The proposed changes represent the most important rewriting of the ownership rules in decades, permitting the largest media conglomerates to expand into new markets and own more properties in a single city. Analysts expect companies, including Viacom and the News Corporation , to seek to expand their media holdings substantially.

According to The Washington Post:

Two things are certain: On June 2, the five-member FCC will adopt most of the media-ownership recommendations delivered by staffers yesterday. Also, a wave of media deals -- and probably lawsuits -- will follow, as companies jockey to exploit the new rules or seek relief from them.

So what does that mean for you? It means that TV is going to become just like radio. The FCC relaxed radio station ownership limits in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and a wave of buyouts and mergers followed. Today, most major radio markets are controlled by a handful of companies, and the biggest and baddest is Clear Channel. Why does it matter that one company owns so many radio stations? Well, for one thing, that kind of "freedom of the press" buys you rallies for war. There are more problems, w/massively concentrated media ownership (see, for example, Salon's full coverage of Clear Channel and read anything by Robert McChesney), but really, could it get much worse?

If you agree that allowing one company to control TV markets nationwide is not a good thing, sign the petitions at MoveOn.org and MediaReform.net.

UPDATE: For still more information on media reform, also read the last few posts Larry Lessig made in April, as well as just about everything since then.

Posted 02:07 PM | general politics

Living With Lies

Speaking of lies, a few weeks ago Robert Scheer penned a good meditation on the question I mentioned a while back: What should we think of the fact that our government no longer even pretends to be telling the truth? Scheer argues that there's probably no more frightening development in recent times; further, he calls Yubbledew Inc., a propaganda machine, and denounces Thomas Friedman's idea that we can shrug off as "hype" the lie that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and world because of its massive stocks of WMDs:

Hype? Is that how we are now to rationalize the ever more obvious truth that the American people and their elected representatives in Congress were deliberately deceived by the president as to the imminent threat that Iraq posed to our security? Is this popular acceptance of such massive deceit exemplary of the representative democracy we are so aggressively exporting -- nay, imposing -- on the world?

It is expected that despots can force the blind allegiance of their people to falsehoods. But it is frightening in the extreme when lying matters not at all to a free people. The only plausible explanation is that the tragedy of 9/11 so traumatized us that we are no longer capable of the outrage expected of a patently deceived citizenry. The case for connecting Saddam Hussein with that tragedy is increasingly revealed as false, but it seems to matter not to a populace numbed by incessant government propaganda.

Is Scheer right? Have we lost the ability to be outraged? Are we so jaded we just can't force ourselves to care anymore? It's easier not to care, easier to believe Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass (see last post) are "bad apples," easier to believe the President was really trying not to lie, or never would have done so knowingly. To confront these lies is to admit the serious degree to which our vaunted "democracy" is broken. It's easier to do the Scarlett O'Hara and just say "I'll think about it tomorrow." As Cipher says:

You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.

Posted 09:33 AM | general politics

Liars

Many of us don't trust what we see, hear, and read in the media, but usually it's not because we think the media is deliberately lying to us. Now that the NY Times has dismissed a reporter who has been doing exactly that since at least last October (possibly for the last four years), we now have more reason than ever to doubt the media—especially the mainstream media, since you don't get any more mainstream than the NY Times. Jayson Blair's list of lies is incredibly long; as the Times admits, he tried just about every form of prevarication known to man:

The reporter, Jayson Blair, 27, misled readers and Times colleagues with dispatches that purported to be from Maryland, Texas and other states, when often he was far away, in New York. He fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He lifted material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.

(See also: This Editor's note.)

Meanwhile, if you watched "60 Minutes" last Sunday, know that Blair's trail of deception is nothing new. The show took a look at Stephen Glass, a writer for The New Republic, says he lied for the thrill of being able to give people the stories they wanted to hear. But whereas much of Blair's lying seemed to be plagiarism, Glass mostly just made stuff up out of thin air:

He made up people, places and events. He made up organizations and quotations. Sometimes he made up entire articles. And to back it all up, he created fake notes, fake voicemails, fake faxes, even a fake Web site -- whatever it took to deceive his editors, not to mention hundreds of thousands of readers.

That was five years ago. Glass has since earned a JD from Georgetown but is having trouble gaining admittance to the NY State Bar because of ethical concerns. Go figure. (But note how he turned to law for legitimacy after being utterly discredited on both a professional and personal level. Does law often attract shady characters simply because they're looking for its imprimatur of legitimacy? Damn, am I a shady character!?)

The fact that journalists are lying comes as no surprise to most writing teachers, who have seen an enormous explosion of plagiarism since the Web replaced the library as the source for research. At the major midwestern university where I've spent the last four years, Triple L has tracked down 13 cases of plagiarism among her students in the last year alone. They do exactly what Blair did—steal whole paragraphs and sentences from multiple sources, patch them together, revise a little, and hope no one notices. And the killer is that when you confront students with concrete evidence that they blatantly cheated and lied, they think you're going to believe them when they tell you they didn't realize what they were doing. At many universities, plagiarism is officially cause for expulsion, or at the very least automatic failure for the course in which the student plagiarized. And while it's possible some universities enforce their strict policies forbidding plagiarism, here at my school the customer—meaning the student—is always right; students generally get warnings and slaps on the wrist (failure on the paper in question, for example, or more often, just dropping its grade by a letter). What's more, the university (as far as I've been able tell) keeps no records of these offenses, so serial plagiarizers get a clean slate every semester to try their games again. This is at a major American university. Is it any wonder we've got young college graduates lying in the media?

(And don't get me started on the example set by politicians who "spin" everything to accomplish their goals. Not to mention Triple L's experience grading for an ethics in engineering class, in which she learned that the vast majority of college students seem utterly unable to recognize an ethical dilemma when it slaps them on the face. The there's the infantilization of American college students which leads them to think they'll never be held responsible for.... Like I said, don't get me started.)

Posted 09:20 AM | life generally

Summer Reading II

Thanks to jd2b for the link to my questions about summer reading. Only one kind reader offered a suggestion (it sounds like a good one), but I (and other pre-1Ls, I imagine) would welcome more discussion of pre-1L summer reading, what to do before law school, etc. Or you could just read this great joke from a law professor at the U of Iowa. Of course, you could always offer discussion and read the joke....

Posted 12:11 PM | Comments (5) | ai books

Summer Reading

Although I won't be ready to start this for a few weeks at least, on the advice of Jaremy Blachman [link via jd2b—who still needs permalinks!] I'm thinking about what to read this summer. Any ideas?

I'm thinking about some of the books on this list, but then, there's GW's list. The first list has the advantage of being shorter and being recommended by a law student. The second list has the advantage of coming from the school I'll be attending this fall, for whatever that's worth. (Should it bother me that GW recommends A Mattter of Interpretation by Justice Antonin Scalia?)

Any suggestions?

At the top of my list will be Getting to Maybe because so many people (including especially Sue) have recommended it. I've also heard good things about Law School Insider, primarily that it's supposed to be better than Law School Confidential, which I already have. And, of course, I'd like to read One L, mostly for fun.

Another option for fun would be Brush With the Law, which sounds, um, entertaining, to say the least. Could it be that the best-kept secret of the legal profession is that law school isn't really that hard? [1

What about Planet Law School? Is it worth a look? Does it contain anything the other "know before you go" books don't?

Then there's the venerable Bramble Bush, but I'm just not sure that would be any fun. (Fun is important to this reading list. This is a summer reading list, after all.)

What else should I be thinking about? Introductions to logic? U.S. history? A good novel or two? Study guides for Contracts, Civil Procedure, Torts, or criminal law? If any of these are a good idea, specific recommendations would be great.

(I realize that only a few weeks ago I was surprised to see people starting to read (and buy school supplies) in preparation for law school this fall, but now it seems I've caught the bug. Why waste the enthusiasm of starting something new?)

Footnote:
[1] ] According to this review , Frank Abagnale Jr.—the subject of last year's move, "Catch Me If You Can"—really did pass the Louisiana bar w/out any legal training. (Here's more on the accuracy/inaccuracy of the film.) Perhaps this is why the ABA works so hard to make sure people can't practice law w/out first getting a J.D. from an ABA-accredited school. It's a cartel, but then, you knew that, didn't you?

Posted 07:20 AM | Comments (2) | ai books

Fall Schedule

Yes, it's early to think about this, but people have been asking me, so here's just about all the info GW offers about class schedules for 1Ls (link requires password, I think):

The first-year class is divided into four day sections and one evening section of between 70 and 100 students. .... In addition to the knowledge of core subjects acquired in the traditional, substantive courses, students begin to develop important skills in the Legal Research and Writing and Introduction to Advocacy courses. These classes of approximately 12 students are co-taught by practicing attorneys and third-year law students. The third-year students, or Dean's Fellows, are selected at the end of their second year on the basis of demonstrated research and writing ability, communication skills, and commitment to teaching.

Typical 1L Class Schedule, Day (Full-Time) Division: Full-time students will usually have two or three classes scheduled each day, Monday through Friday. Each class session is 50 minutes in length. Day students will also meet for 75 minutes each week with both their dean's fellow and their adjunct instructor for Legal Research and Writing (fall) and Introduction to Advocacy (spring).

The first year, fall semester curriculum includes:

• Contracts I


• Civil Procedure I


• Torts


• Criminal Law


• Legal Research and Writing
  

Finally, to those of us who would prefer to know more specifics, GW says

All first-year students are automatically registered for their fall semester classes by the Law School Records Office . ....

Students will be given individualized class schedules during IL Orientation indicating the section of the first year courses to which they have been assigned. This information is not available prior to orientation. Registration is complete when payment is made through the Office of Student Accounts

Alrighty then.

Posted 07:17 AM | law school

For Mom

Add a little extra to your Mother's Day gifts this year by slipping a copy of the original Mother's Day Proclamation into your card.

Posted 07:11 AM | Comments (1) | life generally

What If

Dave Winer's comments about the Halliburton/Cheney imbroglio (see last post) made me wonder: What if we had laws against giving government contracts of any kind to any company with "close ties" to current government officials? The law could state that if any senator, representative, or member of the current Presidential administration has worked for or with Company X in the past 10 years, that company is not eligible to bid on or receive government contracts.

Wouldn't that close the "revolving door" between government and industry? Why don't we do that?

Posted 02:01 PM | Comments (2) | general politics

Bush's Very Own Tailhook?

In the '90s the Navy was called on the carpet for sexual harassment in what became known simply as "Tailhook." Last week, Yubbledew got a literal tailhook of his very own with the carefully choreographed spectacle of his speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Might history show that this was also something of a figurative "tailhook" (as in "embarrassing scandal"), as well?

Dan Rather called it a "production," which it was—staged from beginning to end for maximum drama. And in response, many critics have pointed to Yubbledew's own dubious "military" record, which David Corn summarizes here, concluding caustically:

Was this, then, just a campaign stunt? Nah, Bush and Karl Rove wouldn't waste taxpayer money and exploit a war that claimed the lives of 128 Americans--and thousands of Iraqis--for crass political advantage. And Bush really did serve honorably in the Guard.

(At least one website, bushawol.com, appears to be fairly obsessed w/Yubbledew's supposed military service.)

But that's not all. Senator Robert Byrd has denounced the stunt, saying:

it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech.

Here's the full text of Byrd's speech, which includes the all-important fact that:

It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11.

Meanwhile, Rep. Henry Waxman has called for an investigation into the cost of Bush's little excursion. Not only that, but Waxman is also claiming that Yubbledew, Inc. has given Iraq's oil fields to Halliburton:

It now appears however, that the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the Administration -- can now include 'operation' of Iraqi oil fields and 'distribution' of Iraqi oil," wrote Waxman to Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

As Scripting News notes, Vice President Cheney is still on Halliburton's payroll. The plot thickens.

Posted 02:00 PM | general politics

D'oh!

Man Walking in Field finds new Harry Potter—and then gives it away! Sometimes what seems like being nice ends up just being stupid.

I can't believe I just said that.

Posted 06:32 AM | ai books

iTunes4: A Shot But No Score

I haven't said much about Apple's new iTunes 4 online music service because it has been reviewed endlessly elsewhere. (See, for example, Andrew Raff's link roundup, more discussion on What Do I Know, and suggestions for improving the service at Signal vs. Noise.) A common criticism is that $.99/song is quite a lot, especially considering the labels have zero packaging and distribution costs. Also, while the service does supply CD cover art, it makes no provision for liner notes or other art/writing many artists like to include w/their CDs. This drawback further reduces the sense that downloads are a good deal. On the plus side, if you don't want to download just one song, most full albums are only $10, which is less than you'll pay anywhere else.

Now Apple says it's sold over a million tracks and is claiming to be "the largest online music company in the world." However, after putting the service to limited tests, I'm skeptical that this service is going to break open the profitable online music biz the RIAA dreams about.

For one thing, it's just too damned slow on a dial-up connection. A full CD of music takes several hours to download. This is true of all online music services, but still, this will limit the service's usefulness for many users. (To its credit, I downloaded a 16-track album in about 4 hours and the download never slowed or got interrupted and all the files were exactly what they should have been. That never happens w/P2P services -- sometimes you'll think you're downloading The Pixies and you'll end up w/Prince.)

But the biggest problem I see is w/the AAC format, which is the new codec Apple is using (instead of MP3) to protect "digital rights." MacRumors has a fairly complete summary of iTunes' DRM, but basically it limits you to playing the file on up to three authorized Macs or iPods, but it allows you to burn as many copies as you want to CD for playing in standard CD players. This is fine for me, except for one thing: I own two devices that play MP3 files burned to CD. This allows me to fill a CD w/150 or so tracks, which is great for long drives. However, w/the new AAC format, I'll only be able to fit the standard 16-20 songs on a single CD, and my MP3 capable devices will be useful only for tracks I buy on CD and rip to MP3 myself. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has made an investment in digital music players that only support the MP3 format. I guess people like us are just supposed to run out and buy iPods or buy our music at Best Buy. That's not very cool.

And yes, I know the service is not available to Windoze users, which is not cool either. It's supposed to come to Windoze by the end of the year.

Finally, as many have noted, selection is very limited. Why does the store offer 1995, 1996, and 1999 releases from The Roots, for example, but not their 2002 release, "Phrenology"? Why does it offer only two albums from Paula Cole, one of which (my favorite) is only a partial album? The full catalog from both The Roots and Cole—and the majority of other tunes your ear desires—is available used through Amazon or ebay for less than $.50/song (including shipping costs)—in a format (CD) with no use restrictions and which makes the songs easily accessible to your MP3 gear. So, like Matt, I might use Apple's new service for checking out new music via its 30-second previews of every song, but I'll probably buy elsewhere.

Bottom line: Apple's new iTunes 4 online music service improves upon the usual P2P downloading experience, but it still has a long way to go before it will become my music source of choice.

Posted 10:01 AM | mac geek

Monday's Quick Picks

The Matrix Reloaded: As Agent Smith says through clenched teeth just before he chases Neo down for the shootout at the OK Corral (ok, in a subway station, actually) near the end of "The Matrix": "They're not out yet," but the sequels are coming soon, so it's not too early to start getting obsessively prepared. Try "The Matrix—It's Harry Potter with guns" for one quick take on why the original film has been so popular. (IMO, the article is right that "The Matrix" is not ultimately about man vs. machine, but Neo's not an "early-adopter," either. You see:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy.

Pick a "system," any system, that's what "The Matrix" is about. That's at least part of why it's so popular—you can plug in your favorite bogeymen. Try: Capitalism and/or Globalization. I'll say more about that another time.)

For more (and better) "Matrix" preparation, try something from this list, or, if you're feeling abstract and adventurous, this list. And if you want to be my best friend, please buy me this. ;-)

William Gibson on Blogging: Sticking w/the sci-fi/cyberpunk theme, this interview w/Gibson discusses his experience blogging and why he's giving it up.

Politicans with blogs: Gary Hart has a weblog. I wonder if he'll get any comments from Donna Rice. It seems he doesn't care; he appears nearly ready to run for President again in 2004. ???

The Complete Bushisms: Sorry, I couldn't resist. These always make me laugh but sometimes the laughter verges on tears when I realize: a) our President cannot form sentences, and b) he also either refuses to correct himself or doesn't recognize when he needs to. My favorite at the moment:

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."—Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

Yubbledew's World is Mean: In "A mean-spirited America" Jill Nelson argues it's mean to spend millions making sure we squeeze every dime from the poorest taxpayers. She's right, but who cares? What's important is that we eliminate all taxes on stock dividends! Let's help the people who need it most!

Speaking of hypocrisy: We were, weren't we? Why does the party that used to preach the virtues of balanced budgets now seem to think record deficits are no problem? [Link via Cooped Up.]

Looting Ws of MD? While the U.S. has been battling to keep the U.N. out of Iraq (gee, I thought that was Saddam Hussein's job), no one's been doing anything to secure known sources of possible nuclear, biological and chemical materials in Iraq. Um, doesn't this look kind of bad? It's enough to make you think some people aren't bothered by all this looting and the possibility that terrorists get bad stuff. I mean, as long as the threat is credible, we can wage all the wars we want, right? And man, what could be better for a re-election campaign than being at war!? Think of all the aircraft carrier photo ops!

What if the Democrats Held A Debate: and no one cared? It's hard to care when you can't see it because your local ABC affiliate decided not to show it!

A Better Windoze Browser? Since I don't view the web through Windoze (except on public terminals at school and in libraries, where IE is the only option), I don't know how Mozilla works w/Windoze boxes. Has anyone tried it? How about "Firebird"? (Firebird is apparently a variant of Mozilla, like Camino is for Mac.) Just curious. What I can say is this: If you haven't tried tabbed browsing, you really should. Popup blocking is also a wonderful thing. YMMV.

Posted 08:44 AM | ai movies general politics

Summer Work

People keep asking me what I'm going to do this summer, and I still don't know. I've been looking, and it seems a lot of internship application deadlines have already passed. I figured I'd just work temp jobs or something. Then again, I could do what Dave Winer is doing:

I'll be visiting Dartmouth College (in New Hampshire) on May 9, and then will return during the summer, perhaps often, to interview candidates, and write about it on my weblog.

I wish.

Could weblogs improve our elections? Winer thinks so. I'm not sure, but there's a lot of potential there and I'd love to be part of testing the hypothesis. Philip Greenspun has some good thoughts and comments on ways of doing just that. But since I don't have a private stash of cash that will enable me to spend the summer following candidates around and blogging about it, I'll need to come up with a better idea. If you have any suggestions or tips for finding something interesting and useful to do this summer in the D.C. area, please let me know.

Posted 01:00 PM | meta-blogging

Damn Debt

jd2b recently linked to some uplifting thoughts about the debt involved in law school. First, the title of "The Indentured Generation" pretty much sums it up: People are going deeper and deeper into debt, which then limits the choices they make in their lives. The best thing about this is that the demographic hardest-hit by this phenomenon is, not surprisingly, the group of people w/the fewest resources to begin with:

Students who graduate with the highest levels of credit-card debt also have the highest levels of loan debt and are more likely to have attended expensive four-year colleges and be from low-income families. This suggests that they're either using their credit cards to supplement their loans for educational expenses or for the higher level of personal expenditures that are the norm at institutions geared toward the wealthy.

Gotta love those "institutions geared toward the wealthy." And if that wasn't enough to shock you silly and make you immediately write your law school to withdraw this fall, there's more. Fun.

Finally, on a related note, check out this gem from The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Four-year colleges have increased their financial-aid offerings in the past decade, but students with the highest incomes have received the largest increases, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Education.

Sounds fair to me. Not. So if we're going to continue stacking the deck so that the rich can just get richer, does this mean the poor will just eat cake?

Posted 12:51 PM | law school

Blog Design Notes

After praising DG's innovative blogging yesterday, it's time to promote Andrew Raff's Shameless Self-Promotion. Raff's great blog innovation is the "Linky Linky" column on the right-hand side of his blog, which contains "miscellaneous links that didn't quite make the blog." What a brilliant idea! How many times do you find an article you'd like to make note of, but about which you don't really have a lot to say? Often, there's no need to say much about these articles or sites—they speak for themselves. Yet, who wants a bunch of little one-line posts that say nothing? "Linky Linky" gives you the link, but lets you off the hook for commentary.

Let's just say the days for ai's current design are numbered.

Posted 06:10 PM | Comments (1) | meta-blogging

iBook Design Flaw

In an effort to be a fair mac partisan (whatever that might mean), I just noticed a possible flaw in my otherwise wonderful iBook: The back of the screen is too transparent. This is a problem because if you use the computer in situations where bright light is hitting it from behind, your screen will dim significantly. Would this happen if the plastics behind the screen were more opaque?

See, I'm no mac fanatic. No, really, I'm not.

Posted 06:09 PM | Comments (4) | mac geek

Thank You Labor

Happy May Day, everyone. Next time you begin to doubt that labor unions are a good thing, ask yourself if you enjoy your weekends. If you only have a minute, read this short history of May Day; if you have a few minutes, there's much more to the story.

In Finland, May Day is known as Vappu and I can attest to the fact that this is a party you won't soon forget.

Posted 07:42 AM | general politics

Popdex Picks

Officials: 9/11 Was Main Reason for War: Well, no kidding? This is old news—the peace movement has been saying this for months—but at least ABC finally deems it worth serious mention.

Revealed: How the Road to War Was Paved With Lies: Yes! Yes! We know! So why doesn't this matter? Ah, gee, it's all just so complex. Let's go buy another dvd that glorifies war or promises that the American Dream is still alive. We'll think about important stuff like war and lying governments tomorrow. Perhaps instead of calling ourselves "Americans" we should call ourselves Candideians" or "Scarlett O'harans" because if we ever start to suspect that this isn't the best of all possible worlds we always seem to want to think about it tomorrow. Tomorrow may be coming faster than we think.

Gibson Kicks the Blogging Habit: William Gibson (author of the ground-breaking, perhaps genre-establishing Neuromancer and, most recently, Pattern Recognition) has given up his blog. I rarely found the time to read it, but when I did it was always worthwhile. It's ok, though; I'd rather have another book from him than a daily post on a weblog.

RIAA's Rosen 'Writing Iraqi Copyright Laws': This is rich. The leader of the "sharing is illegal" thugs is going to set up the intellectual property system in Iraq? Up next: Former Enron leaders will write the rules for financial reporting. Iraq is going to be one heckuva place to be a capitalist. But, um, perhaps Iraqis should get water and electricity first?

Posted 07:10 AM | general politics