Moving the Blog

I have decided to move the blog so that I can host it myself. The new blog can be found here: http://mgerskup.com/.

Video Games Make Me So Angry…

Here’s an interesting perspective on the debate about violence in media.

The media likes to run stories linking violent behavior to video games, but a new book is offering up the theory that fantasy violence is actually good for children’s development.

On one hand, this goes hand-in-hand with the concern that modern culture places too much of an emphasis on non-competitiveness in school and the workplace. On the other hand, it seems to clash with the idea that things like anger therapy (dealing with aggression by “letting it out”) doesn’t really work — and can have the opposite of the intended consequences.

Either way, this is an interesting article.

On Israel… Sort Of

Like so many other political problems, the current conflict between the IDF and Hamas in Gaza suffers from a lack of informed political commentary. Typically, I avoid weighing in on the situation, because of my lack of in-depth knowledge about the history and politics of the region. However, it seems that the situation is unnecessarily complicated by a conflation of the nation of Israel with the Israeli people… and supporters of both sides are guilty of this offense.

In response to criticisms over the recent invasion of Gaza, the instinct of many supporters of Israel is to declare any criticism of the IDF’s actions to be anti-semitic, or a direct attack on Israel. They cite the historic persecution of the Jewish people as justification for the existence of a Jewish state, and therefore completely miss the point of the original criticism. Whereas it’s no secret that there are many groups and individuals that call for the destruction of Israel, it is not necessarily true that criticism of Israel’s actions is a criticism of Israel, or Israel’s right to exist. While not necessarily deliberate, this reaction has the consequence of shifting the focus of any discussion to a less rational; more emotionally charged subject that has little to do with the original topic of discussion. Just like it is possible to support the United States while simultaneously disagreeing with their foreign policy, so too is it possible to support Israel and disagree with their policy towards Gaza. Israel, like any other modern nation-state, is not a unitary actor. It is composed of many people and groups with a diverse set of beliefs and interests, and the entire government, let alone the whole population, does not necessarily endorse the actions of the state. Such is the nature of a democracy.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are people like Sid Ryan (president of CUPE Ontario), who respond to the situation by calling for a Boycott of Israeli academics. Unfortunately, Mr. Ryan is making the same error in reasoning as the overly emotional Israel supporter. He fails to recognize that the IDF is a distinct organization from Israeli academic institutions (grouping them all together under the label “Israel”), with different goals and interests. Calling for a boycott of Israeli academics in response to acts by the IDF is exactly like calling for a boycott of American academics due to political opposition to f war in Iraq.

In an ironic twist, I would go out on a limb and suggest that Israel’s academic population would tend to be–on a whole—more opposed to Israel’s recent actions in Gaza than the rest of the population (such is the nature of academic communities).

Neither the Israeli people, nor the Israeli parliament, are unanimous in their opinion on Gaza. I would say how much it baffles me that people are willing to ignore the relevant nuances of a political situation in favour of simplistic labels, but the tendency to combine disparate groups with divergent interests under a single label has been going on for quite some time.

Why The RIAA Is Going To Win

Professor Charles Nesson wants to broadcast his upcoming trial against the RIAA on the internet, according to this article. While this is all fine and dandy, I couldn’t help but notice one of the paragraphs near the bottom of the article. Professor Nelson, a Harvard law professor, had this to say about the RIAA’s lawsuit:

The counterclaim he is making is that these lawsuits blur the distinction between civil law which is design to compensate for losses, and criminal law which seeks to punish and deter.

Now, I’m no expert in law (US or otherwise), but this statement seems to be a tad problematic. The US legal system does not have a clear distinction between civil and criminal law, which is why juries can elect to award punitive as well as compensatory damages in a civil case. As the names would imply, punitive damages are not meant to compensate for losses (unlike compensatory damages), but can be used as a monetary incentive for inducing a change in the behavior of the party found to be at fault (in other words: punish and deter). I know of some legal theorists who disagree with the idea of punitive damages, but that does not change the fact that they exist, and are a part of the legal system.

Whereas the compensatory damages are still quite excessive, this argument might not be the silver bullet for which Professor Nesson was hoping.

One would think that when your legal counsel can be defeated by a cursory check of Wikipedia, it’s time to find new counsel.

Link.

New Theme

I’ll be trying out some new themes for the blog.  As clean as the Kubrick (and Kubrick derivative) themes are, they make my blog feel a bit too defaultish.  Hopefully, I’ll be able to find something that looks nice, and still provides a clean and simple layout.  Feel free to leave any feedback you may have.

Seriously?

Houston Chronicle: Judge’s daughter sues driver she ran into during crash

Convicted last year of intoxication manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, the 21-year-old daughter of a state district judge is suing the truck driver she ran into during a drunken driving crash.

What. the. fuck.

Argument From Authority

Growing up, I never really trusted the argument from authority. As far back as I remember, “because I said so” never held much sway with me, regardless of who said it. I always preferred (though didn’t always get) a legitimate reason for why something should be done.

The other day, I was back in my high school, when I noticed this picture (and many others like it) hanging on the library wall:

For me, the motivation to read has always stemmed from my enjoyment of reading. I read what I enjoy and I enjoy what I read, and that motivates me to keep reading. I wonder if these celebrity endorsements actually motivate people to read, and if so, whether that motivation has a lasting effect.

Is It Just My Imagination…

Nah, couldn’t be! It is a government building, after all.

The Big Move

My blog has moved! It is now hosted with WordPress, and can be accessed via http://mgerskup.no-ip.com or http://mgerskup.wordpress.com/. For the time being, my old blog will redirect to this new site. In time, I will get the setup fully customized, and a new theme up and running.

In the mean time, you can continue reading about my skeptical escapades over at http://lintbox.com/!

Reviving the Blog

Blogging seems to be one of those activities that I enjoy at a rate inversely proportional to how busy I am with work and school. With that in mind, I have been thinking about resuming this blog, and potentially switching it over to WordPress.