As per Gala's post a couple of days ago, I've been chuckling over the hub-bub about Linden Lab and their trademarked items.  And so I thought I would post a bit on this.

Yesterday LL put out a blog entry in which they discussed how to use their trademarked items, and there was rather quickly 150 screaming comments about fixing the grid and freedom of speech.   I thought it might be useful to talk about trademarks in general and then how trademarked items can be used.

Trademarks are very simple in theory, yet the law in practice is quite convuluted.  Copyright and trademark law is a mix of
statuatory regulation and court precedent, with most of the decisions based on common law interpretations in courts.

First of all, a trademark is a word, a set of words, a symbol, or an image that a company has taken for use for itself.  Words are more open to interpreation than images, as "Apple Computers" cannot demand how the word "Apple" shall be used in all settings outside of direct reference to computers.  Also how a particular word is used is open to interpetation:  anyone with a beverage can use words like "cola"' "diet", "orange," "grapefruit" etc.  However, as the phrase "Coca-Cola" and the word "Coke" are trademarked, no one can use those words for their beverage.

Secondly the idea of a trademark is to protect the business interests of a venture.  Taking Disney as an example:  the images of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc, are all trademarked, meaning that Disney holds the rights to those images, and no one may use them without permission.  This is to ensure that the business ventures of Disney are not harmed -- imagine if anyone could make their own Mickey Mouse dolls?  The words 'Mickey Mouse" as put together to refer to the character "Mickey Mouse''  (but not the single words 'Mickey'" and "Mouse") are trademarked, as is the word "Disney."  Certain words to refer to items such as "Kleenex'' and "Xerox" have fallen into such common use to refer to tissues and copies that the fair usage of those is greater than for other, similar companies and products.

Now, you will notice that I have not used any (tm) or (c) or (R) symbols in front of any of these words.  This is because I don't have to do so here. If this blog were for a for-profit venture, then yes I would have to do so on the first use of the words.  If there were prominant use of the trademarked items, then yes I would have to for the first use (and none thereafter).  If I used any of the symbols or images from these companies, I would have to use trademark references.  However, this blog does not fit under any of these categories, I can use the words without trademark symbols.

Were this blog called "Vanni's Second Life,'" then at the top, where the blog name appears, I would need to.  If I just talk about SL or Second Life or Linden Lab , or Disney, or MIckey Mouse, in regular posts, I don't need to.  Look at a newspaper or magazine:  when there is a story about a company such as Disney, you don't see the magazine or newspaper put a (tm) in front of the name of a company or trademarked product of that company.  Look here for examples.

This is because in fair use, when making causal references to a company or its products, we can use the trademarked names.  For profit business ventures have to be more careful with their use of trademark symbols for words, and for images everyone needs to be careful in what they do.  But in day to day conversation, which applies to most blogs, there isn't such need. 

As a final note, it really isn't up to Linden Labs to determine what goes beoynd "fair use,'' it would be up to a court.  If they read this blog and decided that I were in some way harming their business venture by casually refering to "SL", it would be up to a court to make that decision.  Most trademark and copyright law is actually based on precedent, not statuatory law.  Certainly there are reasonable laws in place to protect holders of trademarks, but beyond the obvious misuse in the law, further decisions of how the fair use of a trademark is to be interpreted must be done in a court.  I can't think of any court that has ruled that common use of names and products in print is forbidden without permission and/or trademark references.

All this said, I completely support LL's desire to protect their trademarks.  If they were to allow excessive, non-fair use of their trademarked images, symbols, and words, it would open up the possibility of those falling into public domain.  Near where I live is a middle school that was using the Yosemite Sam image from Warner Bros. cartoons not only on their gym, but also on shirts, keychains, and memorabilia they have sold.  Warner Bros. sent them a 'cease and desist' letter, threatening to take them to court for unauthorized use of the image of Yosemite Sam.   The school had to paint over the image on the gym and stop using it on shirts and other items.  This was necessary for Warner Bros. to do, because the more they allow the unauthorized use of their trademarked images, the greater the chance a court could rule that they have fallen into public domain.  Again, this is all based on court decision rather than written codes.

So, to close, if you have a blog that has the words 'Second Life" in the title, follow their simple directions.  Don't use their logos or symbols without permission, or at least without the proper (tm) next to it for a one time use.  If you from time to time use the words 'Second Life' in posts, but your blog is not mostly to totally about the SL World, don't worry about it.  It would be nice to follow their directions, but it's not necessary.

And yes, they can ban anyone for what they perceive as a misuse of their trademarks.  It's a service they provide, and they decide to whom and how that service will be given.  They could demand in the TofS that you give all your children the middle name 'Linden' or they'll ban you, but they wouldn't have many subscribers, now would they?

Vanni

Blog!

I had wanted to blog daily for a month, but after a couple weeks I lost steam again :(.  Let me see if i can something that will get the fires burning!

--V

OK I haven't posted in six days, and this seemed interesting...

I would LOVE to live in the British Isles, so if I could live anywhere, it would be prob based in Ireland with many hops to Britian.  This way, I could head over to France, Italy and other European nations for visits as well. 

I loved Ireland where I was there two years ago, and I'd love to spend at least a whole summer, if not a lifetime, be-boping around the Irish countryside.  Guinness really is better in Ireland than in the USA, and better for some reason in Dublin than outside.

--V

I don't generally like putting political items on a blog like this, but I was reading a bit about the Chinese crackdown in Tibet, and the West's reaction to it, and thought I'd give an opinion.

I have a rather libertarian view on American foreign policy matters, meaning that unless there is a clear danger to real American interests, no use of force should ever be used.  While I supported the move into Afghanistan (as the Taliban there was giving harbor to our enemy), I naturally have never supported the war in Iraq. 

Accordingly, I don't support any use of the American military in Sudan.  While the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan is tragic, a US or UN "peacekeeping" mission will likey do little, and possibly result in more problems than solutions, with a huge pricetag to US taxpayers.  Continued unrest in the Balkans proves that.

Sanctions, while admirable in theory, end up doing more damage to the people of a nation than to the government (the effect of 10 years of sanctions on Iraq between Gulf Wars is testimony to that), so I generally don't support those either.

I realize this may seem callous to some, but as there is an untold amount of suffering in the world, the United States cannot be the world's policeman without a huge cost to ourselves.  We can certainly say "this is what we would like to see happen in Sudan, in Tibet, in Iran," but anything further usually causes more problems than solutions.

In any case, what to do about Tibet?  Interestingly, what we see in the US right now is curious agreement between the neoconservatives and the liberal labor movement that China is a danger, albeit for different reasons.

The neocons, with their "all war, all the time" mentality,  are interested in nothing more than picking fights with everyone on the globe, in this case the rising giant of China.   Great, that's all we need to do, take on heavyweights like China and Russia while "making the world safe for democracy" in places like Iraq, Iran, and Sudan.  It's working so well in Iraq, why not take it elsewhere? *rollseyes*

Liberal union folks have a beef with China taking jobs from the United States.  While I certainly feel sympathy for my fellow Americans and loss of jobs, we have to look at things realisticly -- the corporate world is in the business of making money for the investors and profiteers.  Unions, while taking American businesses to task for leaving the United States for places like China, India, and Mexico, accelerate this process with calls for higher wages, more benefits and other worker rights.  In theory this is wonderful, but in practice, when a corporation is faced with maximizing profits for investors, or giving Joe or Jane American a high paying job, we all know what the decision will be. 

So both sides hate China, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in India for a climate change conference, but held a meeting  with the Dalai Lama saying "If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against Chinese oppression and China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world." 

Does also include, Madame Speaker, "speaking out" about our friends in Northern Iraq, the Kurds, who are de-Arabing areas and  torture detainees?  Or the Turks, who are also human rights monsters?  Or what about Egypt, our second greatest beneficiary of foreign aid, but quite behind the times in human rights? 

Oh, wait, those are our friends.  They get to do whatever they want.  Riiiiiggghhht.  Can anyone say "hypocrite?"

So what to do?  Firstly, the USA should rightly denounce Chinese excesses in dealing with the unrest.  Shooting people and mass jalings will do nothing but create more unrest in the long run.  Secondly, if the USA really wants to help, it should offer to bring diplomacy to the board, and I believe that world pressure to include the Dalai Lama (a great man of peace for whom I have the utmost respect for) should be brought to the table.  He is pushing for greater autonomy for the Tibetens, but not politcal independence, while at the same time pressing his fellow Tibetens not to stoop to violence, which he rightly sees will cause a backlash and be counter-productive.

Further than that, I push for a hands off approach.  Internal issues in China are not our business, just as I don't think we would appreciate the Chinese government commenting on issues in the United States.  Imagine if China held hands with Mexico, stating that the "Mexican Cession" was illegal and that the southwest and California should be given back to Mexico?  We would react with outrage, but the same can't be said of American posturing over Tibet, which had long been a part of China both politcally and culturally. 

Provoking China is a bad idea, and we don't need to ignite any kind of war, Cold or Hot, with nations with huge economies, nukes, and holding a tremendous amout of our debt in their hands.  That is a recipe for disaster.

--V

In the thread 'BDSM and SL Submission" someone stated this about my opinions on BDSM:

<q>Saying "Submission is submission" for instance really seems to be suggesting that there's a Right Place to draw the line, and even if you allow that others might have different opinions you seem to be granting their right to be wrong, rather than allowing that they might be right. If that makes any sense. :) </q>

Now I don't want to talk about BDSM here, but I do want to talk about opions and being "right."  I am going to say something that will probably be quite shocking to some people:

I believe my opinions are correct.

There I said it, now just waiting for the snipers and carpet bombs to come get me. 

In all seriousness though, why would a person be willing to give an opinion if they aren't willing to say "Yes, I think I'm right?"   This doesn't mean I expect most (or even many) people to agree with me, or that I go about chastising people for not agreeing with me.  It doesn't even mean that I proselytize for my opinions.  It just means I think my view of the world is correct.

I have changed my mind on many occasions when a person was able to present a case for why I was wrong.  Thinking "my beliefs are right" doesn't mean that we have to be pig-headed and never accept different views on things.  And I do respect diffrences in opinions -- I would never change my mind if I didn't respect that others have other different views on things.

I just think that if their opinions are contrary mine, we will remain in disgreement because I feel my views are right.  What I have noticed, however, is that with the growth of social relativism, a person who says "I think I'm right' is branded as small minded at best, or a bigot of some type at worst.

I guess my point is that we should be able to agree to disagree.  Unfortuantely, some people can't seem to accept the "agree to disagree" idea.  Instead, these folks  want to create a world where it's anathema to say there is "right and wrong," insisting instead we have to accept various shades of gray. 

I don't find such a world desirable though.  I'd rather have a good discussion with someone who sees things differently than I do, and after we realize we won't change each other's minds, go have a drink and talk about other things.  :)

By the way, I am not targeting this anonymous person, but whoever it is made this comment and I felt like expounding  on it.  And I feel I did the right thing.  :P

--V

Whew, making it in with 45 minutes to go!

So on Friday I got a bottle of Absinthe, the devil green liquor from the 19th century that was banned for about 100 years.  Allegedly it would cause moral decay due to "hallucinogenic" properties that were reported, but never really substantiated.  This was purportedly caused by the thujone in it, which is present in many different plants (sage oil, for example, is 50% thujone!)

Anyway as long as it meets USDA regulations on the amount of thujone, it's legal to sell again.  And so I got a bottle to try.

After a nice meal of Easter Sushi with friends, we all came back to the apartment and got the bottle of Absinthe.  I don't have any absinthiana, the material needed for mixing and enjoying absinthe, so we used a shot glass and a juice glass along with a small beaker of water. 

According to what I've read, the absinthe is to be mixed in a 1:3 parts with water, so I measured out an oz of absinthe in a glass with some sugar, mixed in 3 ozs of water, and mixed it.  The absinthe I bought is not the dark green associated with absinthe, but a very light green, with a strong anise  smell.  Mixing it with the water casued it to cloud up.

Tasting it was exactly how it smelled ...  like anise, or very strong, black licoriche.  It went down very smooth with the water/sugar mixture (the absinthe I bought is 53% alcohol, but there was a more expensive absinthe that was 62%!).  I can't report any hallucinations or anything stronger than a quick but light buzz that faded pretty quickly.  It was good if you like black licoriche, which I do! :)

I don't know if it's worth the $53 I paid for the bottle, but it's not bad.  I think it's more the kick of trying something that was illegal.  Maybe next time I'll do two helpings and see if the hallucinations start :)

After the tasting, we watched 300, a very nice Easter film.  Good, bloody..and definitely came across as "war porn."  But it had good lines in it, the best being when Xerxes said that the Spartans should surrender to promote a "cultural exchange" (how 21st centry and PC!), Spartan King Leonidas said  in reference to the Spartans killing the first wave of Persians "We Spartans have been sharing our culture with you all morning!"

And to satisfy Lex:  the Spartans did not go into combat with waxed chests and wearing speedos!  They would have been in full hoplite armor... but I guess that wouldn't make the movie "war porn" now would it? :P

Have a good week!

--

For those "not in the know", BDSM stands for three things: 

1) Bondage/Discipline -- the art of tying up, restraining, masking, or putting a person into some form of bondage.

2) Dominance/Submission -- accepting a "submissive" role to another's "dominant" role, and obeying that person's wishes.

3) Sadism/Masochism -- inflicing pain and/or humiliation on another person, or having it done to you.

BDSM is a generalized term meaning some combination of one, two, or three of these.  All three do not have to be present to have true BDSM, in fact, there are many people that just enjoy one of these -- perhaps being tied up during sex, or ordering a person around without enaging in any sexual activity with them, or being whipped without being ordered around.

What I have seen in SL is that a lot of people like to call themselves "submissives," but they don't know understand what that means.  They seem to think that "submission" means showing up now and then, having their dom/me play some kinky sex games with them, and then they leave for some unspecified time before coming back for more.

This is not "submission," and such a person should not call themselves a submissive -- this is acting as a "Top" and "Bottom," with the "submissive" taking the Bottom role.  This is fine if the dom/me likes this kind of thing, although I can't figure out why a person would enjoy being another's person vibrator (as a SL domme friend of mine likes to put it.)  You can usually tell a fake submissive because the moment the Dom/me tries to lay down the law, or explain how any situation is going to be, the "submissive" balks and says "you can't say or do that to me."  Or the "sub" pretends to take orders and then does whatever he/she wants to do later.

I am not arguing that there is a "right" way to practice BDSM in Second Life.  I am simply stating that what a lot of people call "submission" isn't submission at all.  If all a person is looking for is to be tied up from time to time by a Top, they should say "I'm a Bottom" and look for someone who is willing to do that to them (Escorts will do just about anything for money). 

Submission is putting one's dom/me first and foremost, allowing this person to shape you, mold you into what he or she wants you to be.  Although in many cases this does involve exploring sexual kinks, it doesn't have to -- I know a SL domme who has no sexual or kinky relationship with her submissive, it's pure d/s and no b/d or s/m at all.  Fake subbies don't get that, and think that the BDSM relationship involves them being tied up and used at their leisure.  In fact, it's quite the other way around -- a good dom/me will scene with his or her subs as a reward for good behavior, and withhold it, along with meteing out other punishments, as a way to correct negative behavior.

D/S is a submissive submitting to his or her dom/me, not being tied up or enacting kinky sex games.  If it goes into those, it's b/d or s/m, but it is not d/s.  It would be a lot better if more people in SL understood the nuances in the usage of these terms.

Oh, by the way, another thing that absolutely drives me crazy is when some "sub" is walking around in manacles, a mask, and has in her profile some nonsense about "Submissive that has NO limits.  Take me and do whatever you like.  I want no friends, no contact with anyone but a Mistress who will do whatever she wants to me."

This isn't D/S either, it's madness.  BDSM is about relationship, trust building, and mutual exploration of kinks.  It's not about being a walking carpet .  While some BDSM people say that a true relationship between a sub and and a domme doesn't exist unless the submissive has no limits, these people are also living in some wierd fantasy world. 

Everyone has limits on what they would do.  Miss "do whatever you want to me" wouldn't be around long if I told her "I like to force my subbies into acts of canine necrophilia while dropping pool acid on their butt during the act." (not that I like this, I'm just looking for a nuclear type of example.)  A person who says "no limits" doesn't understand BDSM, and a stable dom/me that would take such a "submissive" doesn't understand SSC either.  This kind of person is best left alone.

Here is a good website on the basics of BDSM for anyone interested:  http://www.xeromag.com/fvbdsm.html
[NOTE:  art is NOT work safe!]

--Vanni

Yikes!  Two days without posting!  I've been busy in FL and SL, but also been feeling slack.  I shall have to add two more days to my 30 minimum to make up for it.

I've tried sewing several times, and I can't figure it out at all.  I sat with my mom when I was younger, and with a couple friends later in life, and I still have never gotten the knack for sewing.  I think I jabbed my finger for as many times as I made any decent looking stich while trying to sew sometihng.

Thank God I know how to cook, but coming from an Italian background, that's a given! :P

-V

March 20th is the Spring Equinox here in the Northern Hemisphere, and the feast of Ostara.  Ostara is a putative West Germanic Goddess, who is unknown to historians except via the writings of St. Bede.  A bit on this goddess:

The modern English term Easter developed from the Old English word Eastre, which itself developed prior to 899. The name refers to the goddess Eostre, who was celebrated at the Spring equinox, and has cognates in Old High German ōstarūn, plural, "Easter" (modern German language Ostern). The Old English term Eastre ultimately derives from ēast - meaning the direction of east. This suggests it originally referred to a goddess associated with dawn. Corresponding traditions occur with the Roman goddess Aurora and the Greek goddess Eos.

This is the festival in which the Mother Goddess is reunited with her son-lover-consort who had been reborn at Yule.  Beltane, the next major holiday festival, is a fertility festival in which the God impregnates the Goddess.  The actual dating of the Christian celebration of Easter only vaguely is linked to this, and to this day the computation of Easter differs between the Eastern and Western Churches, only because of the use of the Gregorian and Julian Calenders, respectively. 

Anway, Happy Ostara and Happy Easter!

--V

You know, it's not too often in life that an adult gets just a day to relax.  I remember as a child those long, LONG days of summer, when the days would go on forever, "school" was something that was still light years away, and as a kid I could just revel in doing nothing.

Those days are long gone.

However, today was one of those days fast forwarded nearly 33 years.  I woke up and realized I didn't have anything pressing to do today.  This is day 5 of ten days off for Spring Break, I had gotten most of the work done I needed to do over spring break yesterday, and am saving some midterms to grade for tomorrow.  So...not much to do.

I went over to Target and bought some items for the place, then came home and sat at the computer, and got a playlist ready for the biker party tonight at the Martini Lounge.  Then, took a nice drive in the 72F SoCal weather to the Robin Hood British Pub, where I met a collegue for a nice lunch of a turkey burger and two pints of Harp.  Now, back home I am sitting here doing not much....need to take a shower, and after that...not much again.

I realize this is kind of a silly thing to blog about, but it's nice to have a day where I have nothing pressing, nothing to do.  It reminds me of those days as a child, laying in the grass, watching the sun and the birds go by, and realizing how little time seemed to pass in doing that.  Now, as an adult, time seems to fly by, and I hardly seem to notice as one day feeds into another.

It's nice once in a while to have a "lay in the grass" day.  Try to have one for yourself, and damn soon.

--Vanni

Not celebrating today, as last night when friends came over I made a huge corned beef and cabbage, so I think tonight is that very Irish meal, pasta with turkey sausage. :P

I was looking at the corned beef briskets at the store...a point cut has, in a 4 oz. serving, 25 grams of fat, ten of those grams being saturated!  The flat cut had about 18g of fat, and even the more or less healthier round was pushing 14g per 4oz serving.  But when I looked in the deli section, I found a brisket that had 2.5g of fat, only 0.5 being saturated, per four oz serving.

Rather than boiling it, as it was precooked, I roasted it in the oven with some red potatoes, and bolied the cabbage with a small piece of the brisket for flavor with carrots.  It was delicious!  Just an amazing piece of meat, no fat, and so lean it almost fell apart in your plate.  It was a 3lb roast, and my friends at it all! (One guy, who eats like a pig, not only ate two large pieces of meat and a potato, but also his entire McDonalds Big Mac meal, and cookies, and Peeps....I wouldn't want to know what his cholesterol level is...).

Anyway, I hope all of you reading have a happy St. Pat's!  Here's an old Irish blessing for you:

May love and laughter light your days,
and warm your heart and home.
May good and faithful friends be yours,
wherever you may roam.
May peace and plenty bless your world
with joy that long endures.
May all life's passing seasons
bring the best to you and yours!

Bail ó Dhia is Mhuire duit, "The blessing of God and Mary on you!"

--Vanni

 This is a touchy subject, people may not want to continue! Further, this is in relation to a person that I know in SL. I am not going into any detail surrounding this person, just using the situation as a springboard for discussion. I realize people reading this may know this person -- please do not talk about her situation in comments, use her name, or make any comments surrounding what has gone on in the last couple days. I am just using the general idea as a springboard for conversation, and any comments with details about this person, her in-game partner, or anything I feel is giving away private information, will be deleted. Thank you for your understanding.

-----

An ethical issue that comes up frequently is "cheating" in SL on an atomic partner. A friend of mine was just recently caught (via rather unethical means) in "cheating" on her atomic partner, and said partner has forced her to leave SL, leaving her friends and in-game partner devastated. This situation has made me think about relationship and the atomic/digital morality of it.

If someone has a committed relationship in the atomic world, and they have an online relationship in SL or elsewhere, is that person cheating on the atomic person? And at what point does it become "cheating" if it is cheating?

The obvious answer would be "if there is any cybering going on," but is cybersex really "sex?" Some would say absolutely, but an atomic friend of mine sees it as "interactive pornography" and not sex. But, like in the atomic world, does sex in any form have to occur to create a "cheating" situation? What about deep but platonic relationship? Would such an online relationship constitute "cheating" if there were no jumping on pose balls and writing various sexy things in chat?

What if there is some sensual activity going on, but not sex...for example, what if a fellow has an atomic partner, but likes coming into SL, having a female avatar in a corset whip him for a while for sexual gratification, but does not engage in sexual relations with her? Cheating on an atomic partner? What if this is something he has asked his atomic partner to do with him, but she refuses him?

What about a gal who has a successful and happy marriage in the atomic world, but likes to get into SL now and then for "quickies," not forming a relationship with anyone she fools around with, not wanting to meet anyone online in FirstLife, and doing all she can to keep her atomic partner happy and content. Cheating?

What if a person has a terrible atomic relationship, hates every moment spent with his/her atomic partner, but has to do so for various reasons (could be kids, financial, etc), and finds someone special in the digital world who meets his/her needs. Is the person cheating on their good-for-nothing atomic partner, and even if he/she is, is this a justifiable form of "cheating?"

Here's an interesting one: suppose a person has a successful and happy SL relationship, but both digital partners have no interest in meeting in the atomic world. Then, one of the partners meets a person in FL, and wants to start dating this person. Is this person required to ask permission of his/her in-world lover before dating in the atomic world? Or does unfaithfulness only run from the atomic to digital world, but not the other way around?

Anyway, I have included a small poll with five questions and a final box for your own musings. I don't know what's right or wrong here, but I do appreciate any insight you might give.   

For anonymity's sake, only I can view who gave what answers, and who said what will never be revealed here.  Everyone can view how many people gave each answer for each question, but answers are not viewable.   You must be a LJ subscriber to respond, even if you don't have a blog.

--Vanni  

---------------

 

"Faire, et en faisant se faire et n'être rien que ce qu'on fait."  -- Jean-Paul Sartre

This is the heart of Existentialist philosophy and ethics.  Roughly translated, it means "To act, and in acting, one creates oneself, and is nothing more than that which one does." 

The core of idea of Existentialism is that the person creates his or her own meaning for themselves.  Rather than "Essence Precedes Existence," which would be the Platonic idealist view of the world, in which ideas and meanings exist apart from particular objects due to their having Being as reflections of a higher Truth, the foundational idea of existentialism is that the person or object exists a priori to any meanings attached to him, her, or it. 

Thus, in the above quote, Sartre means that what a person does is the sum total of his or her being, and the essence of a person follows from the set of acts done, or "Existence Precedes Essence."  There is nothing "higher" than the person, and his or her actions, and he or she is completely responsible for those acts.  In looking at a person's acts, we can see their essence, as they have given us a line of action based on their ideosynchratic world view.  And, since a person is responsible for creation of his or her own Being, they must accept all the consequences of that line of action.  This is in contrast to the Christian world view in which God has made meaning for us, or as St. Paul says:

Thou wilt say then unto me, "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, "Why hast thou made me thus?" Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  -- Romans 9:19-21

As you can see, the Christian world-view, in which meaning and purpose comes from God, is in opposition to Sartre's existentialism (although Christian Existentialism certainly tries to answer this, cf  Kierkegaard. )

I've wondered how this would relate to Second Life.  In any online world, SL or others, we create a digital persona and then act through it.  Vanni is the sum total of what she does in-world.  Vanni had no meaning -- indeed, no Being -- until July 4, 2005, when she was rezzed.  She has created a set of friends, a world, had relationship, and owned land, and now, coming up on three years later, I can look back and see the meaning I have created via my action in SL.

Vanni's essence is what she has done, and what she does, and is the sum total of her actions inworld.  What I, the Anima of Vanni, do out-world is really meaningless vis-a-vis Vannesh.  I think that Existentialist philosophy works well in an online world.  Thoughts?

--V

PS:  I think, Soph, this fits will into your "other personality" view, in which the "OP" really isn't the same as Soph, and Soph is not really a "reflection" of the OP.  Am I right in seeing things like that?

First of all, I should note that I take a very libertarian viewpoint on prostituion, meaning that if a prostitute and his/her client enter into a consensual contract for sexual services for money, and if the contract is fulfilled on both sides with no harm to the other, I really don't care much about prostitution.  Yes, I do realize that prostitution is a high-risk occupation, and both prostitutes and clients run the risk of being victimized, but that's the nature of the "trade".  Prostitution is illegal in the United States for the most part, and that does not stop both men and women from entering into sexual transactions for money -- I believe that legalizing it (ala Nevada) would make it much safer for both the prostitute and client.

That said, I do not approve of the morality of prostitution, I simply realize many others have other moral views on the issue, and if they want to enter into such consensual tranactions, that's their business.

Now, as far as fomer Gov. Spitzer, it is beyond true that the man is a total hypocrite.  He busted seven prostitution rings in his tenure as NY Attorney General, along with much more worthwhile prosecutions of organized criminals and into the realm of securities and insurance fraud.  While some of his cases and methods remained controverisal, he certainly was an active pursuant of justice.

Just because you bust prostitution rings, though, Mr. Soon-to-be-Former-Governor, doesn't mean you get to consort with prostitutes.  He has sullied his own reputation, hurt his family immensely, made into a laughing stock the office of the Attorney Geneal of NY he held, along wth the governor's office, and potenially done harm to his friend Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign, since the American public is much more interested in sleeze than they are in actual ability of their elected officials.

As far as "did he do the right thing" in his resigning, that's really a matter of debate.  Considering the above paragraph, I can't help but think that he would hardly be taken seriously as a governor -- not because of any inability to lead the state of New York, but simply because the public would view him as a sleezeball rather than a trusted elected official.  Had this never come to light, he would have continued his tenure as governor, most likely served honorably, and then gone to something else, even though his moral lapses into paid sex would have still be objectively present.  It's the labeling, the stigma that such an act gives, that now taints his ability to lead, as the public trust is violated.  Objectively, he's the same person he was before this story -- subjectively, he's a sleezeball.

Glen Greenwald at Salon has a great article on this very topic, and to quote one of his paragraphs (btw, he is speaking sarcastically here):

Governors who hire adult prostitutes must resign immediately lest the public trust be forever sullied. Presidents who break the law by spying on Americans with no warrants, who torture people in violation of multiple treaties and statutes, who start hideously destructive wars based on false pretenses, who repeatedly proclaim the power to ignore laws, and who imprison people -- including Americans -- with no charges of any kind, should remain in office for as long as they want. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an irresponsible, shrill, partisan radical.

I pretty much agree with Greenwald's opinion here:  we are much more interested in sleezy sex stories than in real abuse of power and denial of due process by our current Presidental administration.  And, like Greenwald, I have no sympathy for Spitzer and whatever legal fallout happens to him due to this case.  Unless he were charged with a crime, I don't feel there is any objective reason to demand his resignation, but subjectively, how can he lead a state when his constituancy is now more interested in his sex life and sleezy antics than they would be in his actual ability to lead the state?

For those subjective reasons, I have to say he did the right thing.  As the old adage goes:  "You've made your bed, now lie in it."

--Vanni

Yay, got my latest box of Zaca Mesa wine!  Let's have a look inside:

2007 Z Gris:  This 100% Grenache wine is one of my favorite "lower price" wines from Zaca (I pay $8 a bottle as a Cellar Club member).  A rather fruity wine, with notes of strawberry, melon, guava and tangerine, this is a great wine with fish and chicken.

2007 Cinsaut:  This is a wine from grapes that are similar to Grenache, and is extremely  limited in its run at Zaca (only 330 cases, as opposed to 1007 cases of the Z Gris).  I have not tried this wine, but the notes say one will find "strawberry, pomegranate, and flowers" with a touch of minerality.  I'm looking forward to trying this one with Easter dinner when I make my lamb roast.

2004 Estate Syrah:  MMMMMMM!  The Estate Syrah is almost as good as the Double Barrel Syrah when they have it.  This is 98% Syrah with 2% Viognier mixed in for a touch of smoothness, and the rich blackberry and sage spiceness goes fantastic with anything from lamb to steak or any other dark meat.  Strongly reccomended!

This weekend I'll be heading to BevMo, as they're having their 5 cent wine sale again (buy one bottle, get a second of the same for 5 cents), so I'll share what I find there!

Happy Wining!

Vanni

I was just looking at my journal and realized that I haven't done a post since January, and hardly any since December.  I therefore am committing myself to posting daily for the next 30 days, even if it's just one quicky post on some small thing, or in answer to a writer's block.  I paid for this damn thing, I may as well use it! :P

--Vanni

I was over at a "munch" (a Brit term for an informal talk) at Deitide today on BDSM lifestyes with Lex.  It was pretty interesting overall; there was some good discussion on the nature of the d/s relationship, how it is both similar and different from "vanilla" relationship, and what kind of expectations come out of it.

After a while though, the talk turned from d/s to a person's FL characteristics and how important it is for that person to "disclose" this info to others.  As you might expect, the main characteristic in question was atomic gender.   One fellow in particular was very adamant that the person he is either with or potentially with (meaning, I imagine, any female avatar) needs to be "honest" about their FL gender.  A female avi also agreed, and the others that I saw were on a continuum from not caring to thinking it's somewhat important.

I have yet to understand why this is so critical.  My best guess is that mostly FL males (and perhaps some FL women) would feel like if they were being SL intimate with a person who is the same sex at the keyboard, this activity would make them "gay".  Therefore, they have to know the person's FL gender they are with so as to avoid this "gay" self-construction that might plague them.

All this was couched around "trust" -- if a person is not being truthful about their gender, how could you trust them in any other way?  But what does the person's FL gender -- or anything else about that person -- have to do with how he or she treats another in SL, or trust in general in SL?  I don't care if a person I'm a friend with in SL is male, female, gay, straight, bi, good looking, ugly, rich, poor, or anything else in the atomic world.  All that matters is how that person treats me in SL, and how I treat that person back.  If we go into business together in SL, or go into a monogamous relationship in SL, or agree to do X or Y, all I ask is that person keeps their word to me.   I will reciprocate that to the best of my ability.

I don't ask for any FL info about people, and just take people as they present themselves.  If they say something to me about their FL, I just assume it's true unless I have reasons to believe otherwise, and I generally don't.  And I don't give anyone RL info unless I'm close to them, in which case I'll share some of my FL info.  But in general, that's needless.

SL would be so much better if we all agreed that WYSIWYG.  I'd imagine the best thing for people who are so scared that they might be with the same sex, or have other FL/SL hangups, is just don't get involved with anyone intimately here, since there is no way to 100% guarantee that the person you are with is the opposite sex in the atomic world.

And if that doesn't work, there's always the "logout" button, n'est-ce-pas?

-- Vanni

I realized I haven't posted in a bit, and need to get with the program.  But for now, happy new year, everyone!  I hope your holiday season was joyful with friends and family, and I look forward to another year of fun and frolics with you all!

Love and kisses,

Vanni

Finals are over, I just have to put grades in and I'm done, for about two weeks of slack.  But before I do, up to the Santa Ynez Valley above Santa Barbara for a wine trip!  We'll be hitting my fave, Zaca Mesa, Firestone, Blackjack, Fess Parker, and a few others around there.  I don't have to drive, so I an enjoy the tastings!

Lunch and dinner will be in the Danish town of Solvang, if anyone is in or visting the California area, I strongly reccommend a trip there!

I will report on the trip and what I tasted and bought!

Happy Wining!

-V

There have been two recent decisions made by the US Supreme Court on sentencing of convicted criminals.  Hat tip to my friend Jenn in SL for bringing these to my attention!

The first one is Kimbrough v. United States, argued October 2, 2007, and decided December 10th.  The link will give you the entire decsion, but here's a relavent bit of what the case was about:

Under the statute criminalizing the manufacture and distribution of cocaine, 21 U. S. C. §841, and the relevant Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a drug trafficker dealing in crack cocaine is subject to the same sentence as one dealing in 100 times more powder cocaine. Petitioner Kimbrough pleaded guilty to four offenses: conspiracy to distribute crack and powder; possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack; possession with intent to distribute powder; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. Under the relevant statutes, Kimbrough’s plea subjected him to a minimum prison term of 15 years and a maximum of life. The applicable advisory Guidelines range was 228 to 270 months, or 19 to 22.5 years.

Many people don't know that in the Anti Drug Act of 1986, Congress created a complicated system of sentencing for people in posession of certain types of drugs with what is termed "intent to sell," meaning have more than a personal amount of the drug.  For crack cocaine, there is a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for having 5 grams of crack (considered "intent to sell",) yet one needs 500 grams of powder cocaine to be given the same sentence.  As the decsion above notes, had Kimbrough only been found guilty of the possession of powder cocaine, his sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidlines would have been 97 to 106 months, but with the crack, the minimum sentence reccommended by the Guidelines was 228 months!

The federal judge in Kimbrough's case gave him the bare minumum for a sentence:  15 years.  However, on appeal (most likely by the prosecutor, who may appeal sentences but not verdicts), the Fourth Circuit Court vacated the sentence, saying that sentences outside of Guidelines cannot be made based on disagreements with the crack/powder discrepency.  The US Surpeme Court ruling has reversed this, saying that the sentence reduction from the Guidelines (which comes to a whole 4.5 years, wow) was certainly not  out of bounds.

I'd like to point out that, at a bare minimum, the costs of keeping a prisoner incarcerated is around $24,000 a year, so Mr. Kimbrough is going to cost US taxpayers $360,000 for food, clothing, shelter, and basic medical care.  Should he need any other medical services, they must be provided for him as well.  Also take into consideration that around 50% of the federal prison population is incarcerated on drug charges, and think about the costs. 

I certainly welcome this decision by the US Supreme Court and hope that it is one of many more to dismantle this unfair system we have in the USA surrounding drug charges.  Certainly we should have penalties for dealers, but as the demand for drugs remains high, and taking one dealer off the street simply opens a job for another to take his place, I can't see what such stiff penalties and high costs do for us in the States pragmatically.  Drugs should be a health issue, in my opinion, and only a criminal one if public safety comes into question.

The second case that Jenn brought to my attention is Gall v. United States, also argued October 2 and decided on December 10.  In this case we have a convict who was given probation rather than prison time for ecstasy:

Petitioner Gall joined an ongoing enterprise distributing the controlled substance “ecstasy” while in college, but withdrew from the conspiracy after seven months, has sold no illegal drugs since, and has used no illegal drugs and worked steadily since graduation. Three and half years after withdrawing from the conspiracy, Gall pleaded guilty to his participation. A presentence report recommended a sentence of 30 to 37 months in prison, but the District Court sentenced Gall to 36 months’ probation, finding that probation reflected the seriousness of his offense and that imprisonment was unnecessary because his voluntary withdrawal from the conspiracy and postoffense conduct showed that he would not return to criminal behavior and was not a danger to society. The Eighth Circuit reversed on the ground that a sentence outside the Federal Sentencing Guidelines range must be—and was not in this case—supported by extraordinary circumstances.

As you can see, this case also involves Sentencing Guidelines, which reccomended 2.5 to 3 years in prison for Mr. Gall's sentence.  The District Court decided that since he was no longer selling drugs, had graduated from college and was working, there was no need to incarcerate him at all, so gave him a sentence of probation.  This seems to me to be a fair sentence -- Mr. Gall has seeming kept his nose clean and is working as a productive member of society, and let's face it, we all did stupid things in college.  Why he would need to spend three years in prison is beyond me, much less cost us in the States $72,000 to upkeep.  The Supreme Court wisely ruled, IMO, that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are just that -- guidelines -- and that judges should be able to give sentences above or below those guidelines with proper reasoning for such divergence.

Both of these cases surround discretion, the judgement making ability of people in the criminal justice system such as police, prosecutors, judges, juries and correctional staffs in jails and prisons.  Over the years, we have seen a shift in discretion here in the United States from the judge to the prosecutor, and rather than a system that can take into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances, we have gone into a very deterministic style of sentencing that removes a lot of the judical discretion from the system. 

I feel this is a very bad idea.  Bad people need to be punished, no doubt.  However, having a system that treats every case the same, giving judges little ability to take into account the person convicted and the public welfare, makes judges nothing more than parrots of the Legislative system.  This removes an important part of the set of checks and balances contained in the Federal system, and guaranteed by the due process amendments to the US Constitution. 

I'm glad to see these decisions come down and hope that we continue to see discretion given back to the courts on the judicial level.  Comments are welcome.

-V