Michael Braun's Blog

Pardon me if this blog post isn’t up to my usual standards. I’ve caught some sort of bizarre cold, I think from one of my co-workers (darn you, Amos!). Here’s the weird thing, the worst part about this cold is increased saliva production. Nothing is worse than having to spit every 2 minutes. It’s just plain gross. And last night, partly because of this, I couldn’t sleep at all. I ended up on my sofa, with my head propped up, and did get some sleep then. Anyway, you didn’t want to know all that, I’m sure.

I heard today about a German opera company who decided to cancel a performance of a Mozart opera because of concern about a scene showing the severed head of the Islam-guy Mohammed. To restate that last sentence, and lead into my point, here’s the lead paragraph from an article at Forbes.com – “A leading opera house called off a production of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” that features the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, setting off a furious debate Tuesday over Islam, freedom of speech and the role of art.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Here’s my anger over the whole thing; it’s those last words “freedom of speech.” I am certain that there are a lot of people (including some who use the word “Islamofascist” and think our rights should be taken away in times of fear) who are upset about this report and about how Muslim pressure is squelching free speech. I’m sure there are plenty of people all in an uproar, saying that Muslims are violating their right to free expression, how the performance should go on, how they shouldn’t be so sensitive, and so on.

I ran into a similar situation when I was trying to recruit people to go to the anti-nazi rally a while ago. I kept hearing comments somehow equating me with stopping the free expression of others because I chose to go and yell at some nazis while they spread their hatespeech. Somehow, expressing my right to free speech was stopping other people from their right to express themselves.

Here’s the bone I have to pick with the complainers in both situations – THE GOVERNMENT IS WHO RESTRICTS YOUR SPEECH, NOT INDIVIDUALS OR PRIVATE GROUPS! I can’t work at a company, call the boss an asshole, get fired, and then sue, saying my rights were violated. Well, I could, but the suit wouldn’t get anywhere. But I can sue if I try to legally protest and am beat down by police because I was being noisy. And that suit might win me some money.

When a German opera company pulls a performance that they consider to be offensive to some, go ahead and get mad. Maybe you had tickets to that show. But don’t tell me that you lost out because of Muslims. Expressing free speech always comes with the risk that not everyone will agree with you. In this case, the opera company felt it made the most economic sense to pull their performance. And good for them! I give them all the freewill in the world to make the choices they feel will help their bottomline, as long as those acts do not violate the rights of others.

It’s good to have vocal people out there. When something happens that bothers me, be it done by a company, an organization, an individual, or the government, you can bet that I am going to stand up and let my voice be heard. If that action causes other people to reevaluate their choices, then let it be so. If you are my friend, you probably won’t steal from me – partly because you believe stealing is wrong (I hope), partly because you know that you will not like my reaction. You do not want to see me sad because you stole something from me. There is no difference in this case. The German opera company does not want to see the reaction of the Muslim community if they were to perform this specific opera.

There’s more debate to be had about how the Muslim community ought to act in this case, but that argument is completely separate from the argument of free speech. If protesting an action causes that action to not be repeated, then yahoo for protesting. If people live in fear of that protesting, then boo the government who can’t help its people to feel safe. If that protesting turns violent, then to jail with those who try to violate the rights of others. But this is not an issue of the stiffling of expression; it is an issue of one expression trumping the other.

This weekend was filled with activities revolving around computers. That’s not entirely accurate, but it seems that as of late I have had a lot of opportunities helping other people (older relatives) try to figure out how to use their computers. It’s always an interesting task as I try to translate my higher computer knowledge down to their level. I don’t consider myself to have a super-high understanding of computers, but I do end up doing a lot of reading about computers and technology, and in general have a more nerdy understanding than some of my co-workers. Be that as it may, all this time spend with relatives has given me a different perspective on building technological devices.

1) Basic users don’t care about more features; in fact, the more features, the harder it is to explain. I bought my mom a new computer (iMac) a week ago or so. She took a week before she even turned it on. I’m not sure if that was out of fear that it would be complicated, a lack of time, or (most likely) a mixture of both. But when she finally did set it up and turn it on, it took 4-5 phone calls to me before she could even get past the login screen and check her e-mail. Thru this whole process, she frequently had troubles. She pressed the side buttons on her Mighty Mouse to all of a sudden have all open windows pop up before her eyes. Experienced Mac users know this is Expose, a very handy feature introduced in OS 10.3. For my mother, it was a confusing distraction. She felt the computer wasn’t under her control. She later opened up Dashboard, tried to configure a Widget, only to accidentally click the desktop and have them all disappear. This was confusing and irritating for her.

In short, she will never use these features packed into her operating system because they are not intuitive to her, and they make her feel like she is out of control.

2) If you can’t make the interface clean and simple, basic users will give up. I consider my dad to be a pretty tech-savvy guy, mostly because he had a lot of experience with early technology and that has left him willing to take chances and explore. There’s nothing better than that when trying to teach someone a computer. I gave my dad my old desktop (iMac G4) last January. Overall, I think that he has enjoyed using it a lot, though he never really got past using Word and Excel. When I showed him how to use GarageBand to turn his old records into CDs, he was very interested. He went out and spent $50 on the equipment so he could do it himself. The fact that he spent that kind of money on technology equipment blew me away. But when it came time to show him how to use GarageBand, he was lost. Even though I created a file he could open to immediately begin recording, he didn’t understand the interface. So when I would do something natural like open up a track to change the settings, he saw that as a confusing sidetrack. It wasn’t part of his understanding of the workflow that I had shown him (basically, select the track, hit record, and start the record). Even more confusing was going to System Preferences to adjust the input volume.

In short, though my dad was highly motivated, these more complex settings made him want to give up. I had to explain all the settings to him three more times before he finally felt comfortable doing it on his own. Without a clean and clear interface, basic users are apt to surrender especially if they try once and fail.

C) Even the simplest of equipment can be ruined for basic users when too many options are available in the same place. I went to Milwaukee this weekend to help my Uncle Bob set up a wireless router he bought. He is going to begin a new job, where he does a lot of work from home. He had his work laptop all setup and ready to go, but wanted help configuring his wireless router. When I plugged it in and got it ready to go, I knew that I had to keep the setup screen from him. Linksys routers place all their options all in the same setup panes, rather than trying to hide some options under an “Advanced Settings” button. There are so many possible options (and a good number I don’t understand) that I knew he would never be able to set it up himself, even with a manual. Thankfully, I knew how to do the basics, like change his network name, change the security on the network, and change the password to access the router settings. But without me there, he would never have found that out. That’s partly why, I suspect, you see so many unsecured wireless networks floating around. People can plug in the wireless router and get it going, but they then have no idea the number of settings they need to change, or how to change them.

Especially irritating with wireless network configuration is changing the name of the network and the security settings. The moment you change the name, you are kicked off the network and forced to rejoin. If you are used to this, it makes perfect sense. For basic users, it’s a point at which they may give up. The same thing happens when changing security. There are so many points of surrender for a basic user.

In short, a complicated device combined with complicated settings can be a surefire way to cause basic users to give up.

Now, I don’t have any specific recommendations for computer makers. I don’t know how to make an operating system more basic, because you don’t want to risk taking away features. The computer I type on now is very personalized, to the point that it is difficult to give it to someone else to use; there are too many things I have configured just for me (starting with the touch-sensitive track pad). But I think allowing users the option to see a simplified options screen can make computers much less intimidating. And having less intimidating computers can be very helpful as we help our parents (and others older than us) get more and more used to using technology.

I’m looking forward to having video chats with my mom, just as soon as she figures out how to open the chat program.

Here’s a quote from George Adams, featured in a story in Time magazine, about whether god wants us to be rich. “I’m dreaming big – because all of heaven is dreaming big. Jesus died for our sins. That was the best gift God could give us. But we have something else. Because I want to follow Jesus and do what he ordained, God wants to support us. It’s Joel Osteen’s [the "megapastor" and author who preaches the so-called Properity Gospel] ministry that told me. Why would an awesome and mighty God want anything less for his children?”

Okay, so first off the guy is a psycho. I think we can all agree on that. But now let’s break it down. All of a sudden, the evangelicals have become the feel-good Christians! If it feels good, shit, God must want you to do it! And no, you can’t go fuck your boyfriend ’til your married, but shopping sprees at the mall is how god tells you he loves you! And let me tell you, sexual pleasure is not anywhere near the thrill of worshipping a mighty god, or getting that new TOP! Trust me! I’m a megapastor at a church for psycho people!

WHAT KIND OF SERMON IS THAT?! From my brief study of the bible, here’s what I got out of it. Jesus was a communist. Jesus sacrifed his life (meaning his own prosperity) to help the poor. And Jesus was pretty clear on the chances of a rich person getting to heaven (recall the verse that says something like camel thru needle easier than rich guy to heaven). That seems pretty clear to me. Now, does that mean god wants you to suffer on earth? I have no idea. I don’t think there is a god. Make your own judgment call, but I can say for near certain that you wouldn’t believe my new religion.

That’s right, I’m starting a new religion. The basic tenant is, if you suffer enough on earth, the afterlife will be heaven. If you live lushly on earth, the afterlife won’t be as good. God wants you to sacrifice everything you own, give it all away. He wants you to refuse to work for money and trust that he will provide what he feels you need to truly enjoy the afterlife. Thus, the hungrier you are, the more death is going to feel real good. And you had better work your fingers to the bone (for no money) so that your eternal rest can be fully appreciated. That’s basically it. The more you suffer, the better death is. WHO WANTS TO SIGN RIGHT UP?!

No one, of course. It’s part of the Darwinian nature of religion. The religions that make sense to the people will survive. Those that don’t mesh well with what’s up in society will fade away and die. How many wickens have you met lately? Lots of people around you practicing voodoo? Those religions have been shunned by society, often because of other religions. The conquering religion prevailed and that’s why it’s sticking around. Religion has nothing to do with logic; it’s all about winners and losers.

So maybe god does want you to be rich. You wouldn’t “know” him in the way you do if your religion hadn’t fought a battle and won. And you’ve been imprinted at birth, most likely, or perhaps brainwashed at a point of weakness in your life. Rather than stay down in your stank hole, you got pulled up, towards the light, towards the notion that there is something greater out there that cares for you. What a comforting thought. Suddenly the days weren’t so dark. And your religion wins again, as another person believes its lies. If you believe in the same faith others do around you, you are further proving my points, and further proving that whatever god exists to be worshipped wants you to be a winner. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t worship him.

I am sick and tired of reading news stories about American websites bending to the will of the Chinese government and voluntarily censoring themselves so that they can make money in the Chinese markets. Google has done it, and who knows who else; I’m too lazy to research this right now. I recently read that Wikipedia will not censor themselves, but that’s not a big deal as Wikipedia is opensource and non-profit.

China is bound to become a big powerhouse of a nation. They’ve got a robust capitalist economy all controlled by their communist government. That means you get the worst of both worlds. A greedy government looking to make lots of money by controlling industry, and the uncaring, money-grubbing nature of capitalism. Everybody gets screwed over. And China is becoming more and more powerful. I’ve heard numerous speculations that China could become the world’s superpower in a number of years, and I don’t doubt that this is possible.

But with China trying to control everything that their people come in contact with, there is one way that the world can beat this nation. We can control the information by REFUSING TO CONTROL THE INFORMATION! If China has no access to search engines because the government won’t allow the people access, then the web is dead to all of China (except whoever the government grants access to). If China cannot get access to that information, they are not part of the rest of the world. And if the government decides they must have the information, then the people can gain access to the wealth of information the internet contains, and in theory, learn something from it.

It makes me sick to think that American companies (and companies worldwide, for that matter) would be so interested in making money that they would actively seek to mislead over a billion people in one country alone to believe the lies of their government. It’s the sweatshop of the future. People forced to toil in ignorance.

Now I’m not suggesting that giving the Chinese people access to all the information on the web would change anything about how they chose to let their country be run. It might not. But it would level the playing field, and it might push China to open up even more on their economic controls both in and out of the country. And it might help them loosen their hold on the minds of their people. It has greater possibilities for bringing about positive change than anything the United States can do on its own.

And I’m not suggesting that the US should pass a law restricting companies from bending to the will of the Chinese government. That sounds like too much government interference to me. Plus, if the government says US companies can’t restrict data for the Chinese, then how can they say that schools and libraries should be required to restrict data? Come to think of it, maybe passing such a law would be a good way to free information in the US. Still, though, the government shouldn’t manipulate enterprise at home in order to potentially affect the future of a country abroad. Too much speculation involved.

All I’m saying is that US companies should take a look at what they are doing and stop supporting the enslaving of Chinese minds all in the name of profits. Props to wikipedia and anyone else who refuses the Chinese government requests. And now, in honor of the 5th anniversary of 9/11, I’ll end with an irritating chant. USA! USA! USA! Ugg.

It’s been a mostly uneventful past few days. I had a great Labor Day, though that too was nearly completely unremarkable. I drove up to see my dad in Mishicot, spending Friday and Saturday night there. We didn’t do much at all: a little shopping, a little cribbage playing, a little antique shopping (during which I was unable to find the old suitcases I wanted). We went for a nice walk over at Point Beach State Forest, a favorite park right near Mishicot. Sunday, I came back, did some grocery shopping, and mostly just sat around. On Monday, Katie and I went out to lunch. But that was about it. Work has been fun all week long, as usual, and here it is, almost the weekend again. Saturday, I’ll head to Milwaukee to celebrate my cousin Sara’s 14th birthday! 14! Can you believe it?

So, with nothing else really to write about, I guess I’ll focus on something that had me riled up Tuesday and Wednesday. I hate to write about facebook too much on this blog, but their recent changes have really got me irked. For those of you out of the loop, here’s what they did. A new feature (the News Feed and the Mini Feed) now capture every action you take on facebook (from writing on someone’s wall, to adding new friends, to changes in your relationship status) and compile them in a list visible from your Home screen (your friends’ actions display there) and your profile (your actions). This suddenly makes facebook seem a lot more creepy and enables stalking to a much higher level.

When I noticed the change (which went into effect around 2 AM Tuesday morning) around 6 AM on Tuesday, I immediately joined a couple groups against the new changes. Later during that morning, I joined another group that quickly grew to (as of writing this) over 700,000 members. As facebook only has 8-9 million users, this is obviously quite a large contingent of people against the new changes. I also wrote messages to facebook, telling them how unhappy I was with the changes. My basic argument goes like this. Before feeds, facebook was about me, an individual user. I chose what information I put out there. I made choices for my actions based on how public or private they were. I could comment on a photograph of someone else, knowing that no one was likely to notice it. I felt in control of my own facebook profile. Come these feeds, however, nearly all my actions are put on the same level. I can no longer write on someone’s wall without announcing that activity to the whole world. Facebook suddenly became about everyone else and their abilities to watch what I do. That is very uncomfortable.

I believe that they will make changes eventually, and give you the ability to turn off the feeds. And according to a recent update I have read, this change will be implemented as early as tomorrow. This seems like success. I will be glad if this happens, and sad if it doesn’t, because facebook, for me, became something very unique – it’s a way to keep in touch, keep connected, without doing anything at all.

Those who know me, know that I haven’t kept up with very many of my high school classmates. I can only call Zach and Tony truly friends anymore, because they are the only people from high school whom which I have regular contact. But I know what my high school classmates (and friends then) are up to these days, because they post that information and allow me to see it. It’s nice to stay up on what’s going on in their lives, so that when I see them (as I did in August) we are not complete strangers. There is a common ground, even as we see each other very seldom, and never have any other direct contact. It’s also a way for me to keep in touch with people who I can’t see on a daily basis – friends who have lives different from mine. Those working, moving away, still in school, and so on, remain connected to me, through facebook. That is something I was scared to lose. The informal connection and outlets of communication are very important to me.

And as I was thinking dark thoughts about not being able to have this connection anymore (over-dramatic as it may sound, I really was thinking about removing my account because of the new “feature”), I started to think – maybe it wouldn’t be so bad to not have facebook. True, I only spend a half an hour or so checking facebook everyday, but it has, in the past, caused me a deal of stress, as I wait for someone to write a message back to me, or am annoyed when no one has an updated profile for me to look at. And maybe losing that stress (stupid as it is) in exchange for losing the digital connection wouldn’t be such a bad thing?

If anything has changed, thru this whole ordeal, whether I am allowed to turn off the features or not, I still feel that a little of my love for facebook has died. It’s like dating someone, breaking up, and then becoming friends again. You always retain a little of that bitterness, a little bit of the feeling that you know something about that person that they do not share with the world, a dark side, hidden away. I see that dark side of facebook now. I don’t think our relationship can ever be the same.

What, has this blog (reminder: http://blog.thebriz.org produces these “notes” for those of you reading via facebook) become nothing but a commentary on pop culture and gruesome murders? I sure hope so! Anyway, “untimely demise” is a phrase I’ve been hearing a lot lately regarding the death of famed Croc Hunter Steve Irwin. I could not agree more. When that poisoned barb of the dangerous sting ray pierced his heart, millions of people throughout the world lost someone they cared about deeply. Now that he is gone, we can see how untimely his demise really was.

HE SHOULD HAVE DIED A LONG TIME AGO! Jesus Christ, the man made his living by finding deadly, dangerous animals and playing with them! He would go and find huge crocodiles and taunt them. Thankfully the animals aren’t nearly as bloodthirsty as I would have been. And maybe Steve Irwin never looked like a tasty meal. And so he never died, even though he should have, YEARS AGO!

I’m really surprised that he lived as long as he did. I’m surprised his wife didn’t kill him when he hauled their one month old baby into a ring with crocodiles and danced the baby in front of them. She would have had every right to pull out a gun, jump in the ring, shoot him in the head, and take the baby out. Entertainment does not need involve the lives of tiny, helpless children.

And now I hear everyone mourning his “untimely passing” and saying what a great environmentalist he was. I have no doubt that he cared about those animals surviving. If they all went extinct, he would be out of a job. This man is not Jacques Cousteau, bringing cameras to places of the world no one has ever seen before. Cousteau let us know the amazing world going on under the sea, saying that dumping waste there was indeed affecting beautiful animals. Irwin let us know that you can get a crocodile pretty angry before he will actually try to attack you. And then, if you’re quick, you can avoid those snapping jaws and get away, laughing and unharmed. WHAT KIND OF ENVIRONMENTALIST IS THAT? Taunting animals is not a way to show you love them. Is he still in second grade, these animals like so many girls he tried to show affection for? Look at that, he wrestled the crocodile. That’s just him showing how much he loves it.

I hope his death serves as a reminder that playing with animals is not often a safe practice for humans. These animals are our equals. We are not put on earth to rule over them. I heard, this morning on a replay of a Larry King interview, Steve Irwin say that god had given him a gift to speak with animals. If that is the case, then why did he interact with them as if he was their lord and master, proud of them as if showing off his subjects? That is not how a naturalist is supposed to act, and yet he has become the model for so many nature shows on television: the wild man, communing with nature, all while really just showing how much better man is over animals. That is not the way life works here on the planet earth. I hope Steve Irwin’s “untimely demise” serves as a reminder to everyone – no person can rule the world.