Ante Litteram

In a recent article in Legal Affairs, Nicholas Thompson discusses the question of genocide in Burma (Myanmar). In Burma, as in Sudan, the Balkans, and Rwanda, this question elicits both vocal assent and strident discord — agreement that genocide should happen “never again,” and bickering over whether it has. Most of the time, everyone agrees that something bad is occurring. Unresolved is the question of what to call it: genocide, or something less? If not genocide, what?

The all-or-nothing nature of “genocide” has repeatedly led to semiotic sermons and analysis paralysis, during which the ongoing massacre often obviated the debate. Escape is possible, but it requires a simple choice: expanding our vocabulary rather than imprisoning ourselves in it.

Just as we distinguish degrees of murder or petty versus grand theft, the world may benefit by considering degrees of genocide. In place of Churchill’s “crime with no name,” we may have created one with too few.
(more…)

I’ve seen opinions across the spectrum on the artistic merit of Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s The Gates. For my part, I wonder why nobody has looked at this installation as anything other than artwork. Why haven’t they asked themselves the question: What does The Gates mean for sports in Central Park?
(more…)

The Week in Review this week includes the article “Who Do You Trust More: G.I. Joe or A.I. Joe?’. After talking about the Pentagon’s future plans for an AI-driven battlefield, it concludes with a series of doubts about the trustworthiness of computers in an command and control role:

If that comes to pass, doubting some future incarnation of Multivac might be an act of mutiny. Yet there would always be a nagging suspicion: The machine will have been designed by the imperfect species called homo sapiens. What if we got something wrong?

This sort of fearmongering betrays a peculiar view of trust.
(more…)

The CS Monitor recently ran an article about digital manipulation in photojournalism.

Photojournalism is only one aspect where the readership is demanding more influence over, or at least insight into, judgment calls in news media. I believe that with regard to dominant media outlets which claim objectivity, these demands deserve recognition. The New York Times acknowledged as much in creating the position of Public Editor / Omsbudsperson. Photojournalism is an interesting submedium, though, because of the much stronger cognitive bias in favor of “seeing is believing” (versus “reading is believing”). The larger degree of attributed veracity demands greater accountability.
(more…)

During the 19th century, novels commonly emerged piecemeal, their chapters dribbling out in consecutive journal numbers. Some of Dickens’ and Dostoyevsky’s best work was originally written under such presure.

Unfortunately, the primary outlet for serialized stories today is television. Unfortunate because of the limitations of this medium for topics of import, for incisive psychological sketches, and for pure bawdiness. As an audience, we deserve to see a rebirth of the serialized novel. Fortunately, technology may once again prove midwife to literature.
(more…)

I’ve heard it said that at graduation, each newly-minted architect should receive two things: a diploma, and a lifetime supply of dynamite — the diploma to create anew; the dynamite to rub out mistakes.

Does this sentiment apply to legislators as well? In a recent essay, David Hitt suggests that every law have a built-in expiration date (sunset clause). Hitt proposes that under automatic expiry, a debate would be forced on each and every law on the books at the time of its demise. Would this lead to the retention only of that legislation which has passed the test of time?

I’m afraid not, but Hitt does get at something else entirely.
(more…)