chicus.com

Apple and Censorship    Mar 22, 2010
I came across this article about Apple rejecting an iPhone app created by a German artist on the grounds that it was indecent. I can see and on some level respect Apple's desire and right...I'm going to allow myself to revisit that word later...to censor content created explicitly for distribution on their proprietary platform but it also concerns me.

First off, I see a significant disparity in their decision to block this individual app. The rejected app is not an app to sift the internet for porn or troll for random sexual encounters. It shows normal people who aren't even fully naked in an attempt to make an artistic point. "What is art?" could be debated and our opinions may differ but they are blocking an app which doesn't even show actual nudity. However, if you go to the iTunes store you can purchase the Black Crowes album Amorica whose cover is a close up image of a woman in a flag thong with pubic hair showing. You can also purchase 200 songs from 2 Live Crew, whose lyrics might not be as shocking today as they were in the 80's but promote recreational sex and the objectification of women, to put it quite mildly. I have some trouble understanding why one of these items is banned from their online store but the others are permitted.

My other concern has to do with the extension of this policy to the iPad, which releases in a couple of weeks. Should the iPad become the most widely used ebook reader and Apple continues to censor content this could have real implications with the availability of texts. OK, that might be a stretch. However, a more concrete example is in college texts. If Apple found that app objectionable who is to say they would let a college Sexuality text onto their platform? I worked on such texts back in the day and have seen content they could find more objectionable than near-nudity.

I think the chances of them blocking such a text are pretty slim, honestly, because they would be blocking themselves from a revenue stream and the potential of a school requiring adoption of their platform for ebooks.

I wonder if the answer lies in revenue. I couldn't find if this app is free or requires a fee but it would be much easier to block something which will provide no income than songs or texts which will certainly bring in money.

The Who Got a Raw Deal    Feb 08, 2010
Now I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was a great show. It wasn't a good performance and judging by the general reaction most of you probably liked it much less than I. 30 seconds into Pinball Wizard it was pretty obvious they couldn't hit the high notes they once achieved. There was a muffing of the words at one point and apparently (I did not see this myself) Pete Townshend messed up the guitar playing at one point but the sound continued flawlessly, indicating there may have been some prerecording or a backup band tucked away somewhere. Oh, and then there were the multiple stomach shots...unnecessary.

However...

At some point in the planning of the Super Bowl there was this guy, we'll call him Ted. Ted's job is to plan the halftime show. Ted calls a meeting (he works for a big corporation after all) blah blah blah committee finds a variety of acts blah blah Janet Jackson blah blah blah consensus blah blah blah he calls up Pete or Roger (or their manager, really) and says we want The Who to be the act at the Super Bowl halftime show. The Who, 3 years removed from their last tour, take the opportunity because they love being in the limelight and (who are we kidding) 12 minutes of work has never paid so well. (Yes, they prep, I know, but it's simpler that way.)

My point is, somebody picked them to perform. My question is, was the steps taken to ensure they could still perform at a level the Super Bowl audience would expect? My belief is that they did not and that person, or group of people, is more responsible than The Who for a Super Bowl performance that did not meet expectations. I believe a case could be made that The Who bears a fair amount of responsibility as they should have realized they were not in peak form but it's hard to find them culpable because which aging rock group would say no to that opportunity?

On another note, I think if we slightly separate ourselves from memories of an artist at their prime and the reality of a performance past their peak we can be very pleased with the show we see. This is easier to when physically in their presence, I believe, a fortune The Who did not have with a nationally televised event. When I saw Bob Dylan a few years back he was nowhere near the Dylan of old. However, it was clear he was a different singer, it was as if he was a new artist covering Bob Dylan in a unique way. But maybe that's part of where The Who went wrong. Rather than embrace that they are no longer The Who of old and reinvent their old songs they played the part of a cover band trying to be "THE WHO" and falling short.

So yes, the show could have been better but there was someone who decided they were the right fit. Maybe The Who sold out or genuinely thought they could pull it off like the days of old but all blame should not be pinned on them.

Awareness    Jan 13, 2010
This was initially one post in two parts but the first went so long I broke it up. Since I don't post that often right now I don't want you to miss the first post of the day on Haiti. Also, donate.

I've had some misgivings lately about "awareness", especially as it relates to social media. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people being more aware of life outside their apartment. I'm actually quite for it. However, I have concerns that people confuse raising awareness for action.

I have seen this twice recently. Initially I thought of this with the Facebook day of posting your bra color for breast cancer awareness and today it was the quake in Haiti.

One day last week all these cryptic status messages which only stated a color started popping up. Being the curious person I googled and found it was to raise awareness for breast cancer. One result I found stated that the purpose was that while the women looked under their shirt to identify the color of their bra they were encouraged to give themselves a little self-exam. (I cannot find that link now)

That's all well and good in theory but how does it work in practice? Did women actually checked themselves or did this simply become a fun Facebook game? Did anyone see the posts and learn anything about breast cancer?

The easy answer is that if even one woman checked herself or was prompted to schedule an overdue mammogram the gimmick was a success. And I completely agree with that. However, couldn't it have been much more effective if the status said "blue. Get checked." or anything of that nature to prompt action? I think this post, chosen because it was the first Google returned and NOT because it supports my point says it wonderfully. "When someone has found the cause of the bra color updates, they have been made aware. Mission accomplished. Some people may stumble upon a blog or article that spreads breast cancer awareness further. There is then possibility that people will be educated on breast cancer risks, self exams, early detection and more." (my emphasis) Why leave it to possibility that someone will stumble across the reason for the posts when it is so easy to include a link that would ensure they understand as well as provide solid information on how to take action? It's much less fun than posting just the color but a much more effective means of raising awareness (if that's your goal).

I saw this again today with "awareness" for the Haitian earthquake. First off, if it was noon and by reading facebook was how you learned of the earthquake you need to get out of the fucking hole you live in. So what purpose does it serve to say your thoughts are with those in Haiti when there is no action behind it, other than posting some generic blog post? How much more effective would it be to say "my thoughts are with those in Haiti, you can donate $10 by texting HAITI to 90999 if you are an AT&T customer or go to (choose the website of your choice)"? I was particularly bothered by twibbon, a twitter app that allows you to add a Haitian flag overlay to your twitter picture. Today they drove over 10,000 people to their site to add the Haitian flag to their twitter image yet on that page they don't provide any information on how to make a donation to those whom they are allegedly trying to support. Yes, they made people aware, I took note. But what did they DO? What tangible step was taken by their site? How hard would it have been to post a site to any one charity or a list of available charities to encourage people take real action?

Thanks for listening to my rant, I hope it moves you to act, even if that is just posting here to tell me I'm full of crap (but I would prefer if you chose to donate money to Haitian relief).

Haiti    Jan 13, 2010
I'll say straight away the Haiti earthquake struck me more than expected and may have flavored this post more than even I would anticipate.

First off, an explanation of why I think it hit me. In the spring of 1998 or 1999 (it bleeds together by now) I spent my spring break in the Dominican Republic. Far from the all-included resort experience most people have when they visit the tropical country I spent a good amount of my trip among those much less fortunate than I. It's an experience I have struggled with since; to the point that for many years it paralyzed aspects of my life because I felt as though I could never do enough to help or live a life with some sense of solidarity with the conditions I saw.

Most directly affecting my mind last night and today was a trip to a Haitian refugee camp in the DR. Haitians are treated like shit in the DR. Think back to the days where a white would not sit next to a black on a bus in the United States and that was exactly where it was (is?) in the DR with Haitians. I sat on a bus where the only person that would set next to a Haitian was an American. Please don't get me wrong, none of this gives me any authority on the situation and that isn't my intent, it's simply to relate my very personal feelings.

The Haitian refugee camp was the worst living conditions I had ever seen. No running water or electricity and the only 'fresh' water they had access to was in a ravine behind the camp that was so heavily polluted and littered that in my upbringing I wouldn't set foot in it, much less drink from it. I absolutely cannot do the experience justice and can only say that if that life was better than the life they had in Haiti I can't fathom what life in Haiti held.

All those thoughts which had fallen largely to my subconscious came rushing back last night and moreso today. I woke up a bit crabby. On the way to work I felt unduly frustrated at those who wasted an extra styrofoam cup to insulate their iced coffee in sub-freezing weather. At work I felt unreasonable anger towards the woman next to me for griping for 10 minutes about the extensive streak of cold weather. After work I felt an escalated amount of frustration for a coworker who searched for and downloaded music on his iPhone while in my exclusive company. I searched for ways to aid those in Haiti and felt strong disapproval at those who were raising awareness without any clear sign of how they would provide assistance...more on that to come.

So the earthquake evoked a lot of emotion from me. That was most apparent to me when I opened this photo gallery at work and found myself tearing up at some points. (Most notably #31, a relatively tame picture by the standards of this gallery which simply showed a father carrying his dusty daughter by the light of car headlamps.) This is the poorest country in the western hemisphere and they have been struck by a tragedy that by some accounts may wipe out 6% of their population.

For what it's worth I've decided to donate to Partners in Health. It's a nice coincidence that they are local to Boston but beyond that I have known of their work in Haiti prior to my time in Boston and they were listed as a preferred recipient of funds by the group I initially decided to donate to, charity: water (whom I initially chose because 100% of public donations go to those they serve.