Yeah, this is going to be one of those serious entries about a very important subject. There’s no question that rape is a horrible, horrible crime and rapists should be punished severely. But there’s a new wrinkle in the legal definition of rape that is causing quite a stir. Time Magazine ran this article:

If a woman consents to having sex with a man but then during intercourse says no, and the man continues, is it rape?

The answer depends on where you live. The highest courts of seven states, including Connecticut and Kansas, have ruled that a woman may withdraw her consent at any time, and if the man doesn’t stop, he is committing rape. Illinois has become the first state to pass legislation giving a woman that right to change her mind. But in Maryland–as well as in North Carolina–when a woman says yes, she can’t take it back once sex has begun–or, at least, she can’t call the act rape.

That was the recent ruling by Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals in a case that may soon make its way to the state’s highest court and that has captured the attention of feminists and legal experts across the country. Advocates for victims’ rights insist it’s not just a matter of allowing a woman to have a change of heart. If the law doesn’t recognize a woman’s right to say no during sex, they say, there is no recourse for a woman who begins to feel pain or who learns her partner isn’t wearing a condom or has HIV. Those who are wary of these measures say they’re not arguing against having a man stop immediately when a woman no longer wants to have sex, but with how to define immediately.

This is a fascinating article, especially the story of one man’s five year conviction as a result of this confusion. There are a lot of interesting points raised for both sides and I’d love to hear the opinion of those reading the article. I doubt that there’s a clear “right” answer in this case and I definitely can see arguments for either side of the debate.

What are your thoughts?

With all of the entertainment discussion, I thought I’d follow up on some real world stories that caught my attention today. If you’re wondering who is in the above picture, it’s Sylvan, the WWE’s “Ambassador-At-Large To Quebec” and it does tie in with out first story. Still, you knew I couldn’t keep this all serious, eh? You can read all about him, as well as watch his video about Quebec, right here.

• `Quebecers aren’t racist,’ Charest says: This is an interesting story to me, not only because of my Canadian heritage, but because of the way the poll was conducted. When I was in Canada, Quebec had a bad rep for a number of reasons, due in part to trying to split from the country (which never goes over well, y’know) and the perception of xenophobia in Quebec. I’ve only been in “La Belle Province” once and never felt it was any more racist than the rest of country, nor did any of my Quebecois friends seem more/less racist than anyone else I knew. Moreover, I’m curious what kinds of questions were asked. I don’t know how you poll racism and frankly, most racists I meet never refer to themselves as racists. They’re not like comic book super villains who call themselves villains– even though few real life “bad” people ever see themselves that way– and I doubt that you can dismiss 60% of the Quebec population based on one poll. It’s times like this I wish I had CBC News to see their coverage of this story. It seems like you need to define racism in a very specific way. We all have biases in our behavior and in our actions– we have to because we’re informed by past events. Racism, to my understanding, is a step further where that bias is far more extreme and aggressive, if not a consciously nurtured state of mind. If you’re walking down a street late at night and see some people– of any race– dressed like “thugs,” you’re bound to tense up or cross the road. Is that racism or stereotyping? Or perhaps a different word? So while this poll may be good for headlines, I’d caution non-Canadians to pay it no real attention.
• Afghan civilians stop terror attack at U.S. base: Now this is the kind of story I like to see in the news. I know that a lot of people like to forget about Afghanistan and the war over there, but it is great to see people joining in the good fight. I feel like I should say more, but it’s one of those stories where I regret the loss of life, but I’m also in awe of the bravery and heroism of those fighting the terrorists.
• ‘Lost’ creators: We know where we’re going: Did anyone ever doubt that? Really? To me, the question was always if they had enough material to fill up the time it would take to get there, which brings me to why this story is important to me: art vs commerce. As much as I’ve grown disinterested in Lost, it’s hard to blame the creators who are at the mercy of the network execs and probably can’t pace the story in the manner they’d like. On one hand, it’s easy to villify the network and feel bad for the creators, because as noted in the article, it’s hard to know your story beats when you don’t know how long the story is going to be. If you climax too soon, well, you’ve got a mess on your hands you’re trying to clean up. And yes, I know how that sounds. On the other hand, the networks are desperate for hits these days and with something like Lost, which has been so profitable, it makes sense that the network would like it around for at least 5 seasons, so it can be syndicated (gotta hit 100 episodes) and so that they can continue to profit from DVDs, merchandise, etc. In a perfect world, this show should end when the creators want it to end, but the American television audience is hard to please and hard to convince to stay with a show as it grows (hell, look how early I myself dismissed Heroes). It’s one of those struggles to keep in mind when we criticize entertainment and disrespect the creators– it’s not always in their hands.

This will be a short collection of stories, as there’s not much out there I felt like commenting on, but I tried to go for some diversity today. As a reminder, on January 14th, 24 returns with a two hour season premiere, followed by the second two hours on January 15th. If you’ve never watched the show previously, you shouldn’t have a problem jumping right in and finding out why this just may be the most fun program on television. Also, while I planned to do some more New Year’s resolutions, turns out I don’t have any more of value and so for now, we’ll stick with the four I’ve previously mentioned.

• Speaking of 24, Stephen King has written a spoiler free review of Season 6’s first four episodes. It sounds quite promising and a bit more anchored to reality, though I still expect Jack to navigate the streets of LA in record time, never requiring food or use of the toilet.
• Rowdy Roddy Piper talks about battling back from cancer and his career with the WWF/WWE. The man is one of the best wrestlers of all time and while it’s sad he can’t be active now, he is fighting back admirably and seems like a class act. In this era of multiple title reigns, it’s surprising to learn how little gold he actually held as a wrestler.
• Who is the ‘08 candidate for Republicans? Time has an interesting article about this subject and as they say, I’m not sure who is best suited to run for the presidency. I’d argue that the Democrats have an equally large, if not larger, problem with choosing someone for ‘08, and it should make for an interesting election.
• Time Magazine’s top Ten Comix of 2006 list is out and it’s a bit “artsy,” as always, but it’s not a bad list. If nothing else, this list will remind people that comic books are a legitimately diverse medium and not restricted to just superheroes. I’ve only read a few books on the list, but none of them would have been in my top ten list of the year except for Sandman, and even then, I would have liked to included no reprints if possible. There was a lot of exceptionally strong new work, some of which this list highlights, but it seems criminal to not include All Star Superman, possibly the finest superhero comic book in years.

I’ve said it before, but I’m always stunned by my generation’s aversion (of which I’ve been guilty) to news and candid, challenging debate. There are far too many people I know who ignore the news and then spout off unsubstantiated conclusions as some kind of gospel (maybe that’s me!), or those who view a small amount of the news each day, retreating because it scares them. I know some people who hear about violent crimes and assume it’ll happen to them, without looking at the circumstances surrounding the crime and doing any kind of research to get the proper factual support for their fear.

However, the most baffling condemnation of watching/reading the news comes from those I know who say they don’t “have the time” and don’t like how the news makes them feel. Call me crazy, but isn’t journalism supposed to inform you about your world and then make you feel something about it?

When did it become bad to feel something (positive or negative) about the world around you because you’re informed and can see the nuances of the global community in which you exist?

Now that may be overstating the position of some who seem utterly terrified by watching the news, but I’ve never understood the fear of learning about the world. Yes, there’s lots of crime in North America. Yes, there are acts of genocide committed each day that go unchecked by the world powers. And yes, the social fabric of North America is changing at an increasingly quick rate, meaning that in order to be relevant, you need to be educated (in some fashion). But that doesn’t mean that you need to be afraid of any of it– you just need to realize what’s going on in the world so you have the proper lens to interpret events. If one doesn’t seek to educate themselves froma variety of sources, the world will surprise them (and not pleasantly) at far more turns that if one seeks a real world education. Not everything going on in the world is bad. And if you know what is wrong, then maybe you can contribute to make a difference, becoming a better person as a result. Additionally, if you know about the things that scare you and how to combat them, you’ll have less reason to be afraid. It’s a situation with only upsides.

There are some people who like to get the news from their friends and family, which I understand to a degree, but it really is just a matter of a few minutes each day to properly research the subjects that matter. For example, politicians are notorious liars and while many mean well, their half truths can obfuscate the matter at hand. If one simply uses Google, or any other search engine, to find more material on a subject, we’ll all be more informed and better able to sort through the BS filtered down to us through these public figures.

When it comes to having the time to keep abreast of current events, I guarantee you that you can spend 15 minutes each day (with a meal for example) reading the newspaper (online/in print) to learn about the big stories. It’s not hard to do if you make it a priority.

No one knows everything, and there’s some bias in almost every major news outlet, but at least having a basic understanding of the world around us seems like something everyone would want. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for not actively searching out your own truth, but if it’s out there, I’ve never heard it. There’s just no reason to be averse to some information about the world around us, because it can only do us good and encourage us to see how we can best contribute to the world around us.

Well folks, if you haven’t done so yet, make sure to check out Casino Royale the new– and my favorite– James Bond flick. It’s a really fun film with more depth than you might expect from a Bond movie. Not only does it borrow the best moments from the book (except one interesting philosophical debate that is left out), it adds a lot new scenes and interesting nuances to the origin of 007. Over at CNN.Com, there’s a good review of the film.

Onto the news!

• I interviewed the writers of the new Battlestar Galactica: The Cylon Wars comic book mini-series over at CBR and fans of the show will definitely not want to miss this book, which may well be in continuity when all is said & done.
• What are the ten bigget watercooler discussion moments from television? EW thinks it has the answer, citing the obvious (Luke & Laura’s wedding on General Hospital) to odd choices (a moment from Buffy). Still, it’s an interesting list and well worth a gander.
• IGN reviews Microsoft’s new music player, the “Zune” and while it sounds like a decent device, I really don’t know how Microsoft can hope to stand side by side with Apple in the digital music war. So many people have invested in Apple’s iTunes and like it or not, the music downloaded from iTunes can’t be used with another player– unless you concievably burn CDs and then rip the songs using the Zune software. I hope Microsoft does well, because competition would be a great way to get Apple to up their ante and deliver even better stuff to consumers.
• In time to buy me for Christmas: a Transformers chess set! Jokes aside, this is horribly overpriced and I may love Transformers, but even I have my limits.
• Lou Dobbs talks about being a populist and why it may not be a bad thing. It’s an interesting essay, though I’m sure that many may disagree with his viewpoint.

Some things in life confuse me. And every so often, I’ll run a column asking questions about those confusing issues, some silly, some serious, but all 100% confusing to me. Are you ready?

• How can you have a Level/Floor 0 in a hotel? I was talking to my friend Jonah about this, because a few years back we were in London, where we stayed at a great hotel where the first floor was numbered as “0.” How does that work? Your base floor is the first floor, and thus either “M” for Main or “1″ as the first floor (the former is more common). So is this Floor 0 thing more common than I realize? Am I nuts to remember this years later?
• Is there a limit to the popularity of Heroes? Even CNN is hailing it as the big success of the new television season. I tried watching a couple recent episodes and still can’t into it, but I gotta say that it has improved since the pilot. Am I the only one not enjoying this show? Regardless, I’m glad to see a superhero show do so well and connect with people, because in theory it’ll help people see that comic books (and superhero tales in particular) don’t have to be stupid or infantile. I hope we see Heroes continue to grow in popularity.
• What the heck is an activist judge? Both sides of the political spectrum use this term liberally, but what does it mean? Judges are supposed to interpret the law, so as long as they do that honestly, how are they activists? By definition I think they’d be considered activists anyway, since they’re interpreting law and dispensing judgement, but how can you tell when someone is doing it in a way not consistent with the laws & values of a city/state/country?
• I’ve asked this before I think, but what does “fuck you” actually mean? Grammatically, I’m not sure it’s anything beyong a sentence fragment, but what is the insult supposed to mean? While we’re on the subject, flipping someone the bird is equally odd, as it would convey the message that you want to put your finger…y’know. Perhaps I’m thinking through this too much, but shouldn’t insults at least make sense?
• Why is Superman considered “lame” by so many people? I’m obviously biased, as I have a tattoo of his damn logo on my shoulder (as does my brother, making it our family crest I guess), but I’ve never understand how the character was any less “cool” than Batman, Spider-Man or the like. He’s always seemed like a beautifully complex character to me, beyond the obvious Christ metaphor, because he is the ultimate immigrant and is so concerned with making the world a better place. The former is great for exploring identity and how we all defines ourselves. The latter brings up many interesting ethical and socio-political questions. Superman’s problems aren’t as clear cut as Spider-Man’s issues, and his quest isn’t as gritty as that of Batman, but I’ve always seemed the character as really complex and compelling.

This whole John Kerry debate has been interesting to watch for a number of reasons, but the one that interests me most is how Kerry– and Democrats– is being characterized as pompous and as one television talk show host said, “acting like he’s God.” Now I don’t want to make this seem like a partisan political debate, as this isn’t about Republicans and Democrats, just the interesting way that confidence is percieved and filtered through our minds.

Now some of you may be saying, “But Arune, you’re an arrogant jerk, and you’re just trying to make excuses for your shortcomings!” and you might be right. I’m sure some part of me is trying to defend myself. And I know not everyone sees confidence in the ways I’ll discuss, so please don’t assume I’m condemning everyone for their own perceptions.

There’s obviously a fine line between confidence and arrogance, but where is that line? Arrogance is, to many people, underserved confidence, over confidence, or however else you’d like to phrase it. But if that same person is provided with more data about the person they thought was arrogant, information that backs up the level of confidence displayed by that person, it becomes a deserved confidence. It becomes the kind of confidence we admire. In North America, it seems as though we’re still awestruck by the confidence of a cowboy from the old west, a person so full of resolve, determination, and steadfast adheration to their ideals that they’ll die for what they believe in. That kind of confidence when a person can smirk and you know they’ve won.

The next question one has to ask is when one’s confidence is an informed confidence and not one born out of ego– is there an answer for that? If we know someone well, then we can often comment with confidence as to the informed confidence of one’s statement. This isn’t to say that we going to be correct, but we’d have a basis to make our comments from, having observed this person’s actions and noticed patterns developing. If someone tells us that they’re really quite strong but we’ve seen consistent feats of weakness, the claim of strength might be pure arrogance. Conversely, if we’ve seen this person exhibit a lot of decency, kindess, and honesty, their claim of being a “good” person is one we’d believe.

And maybe it’s just me, but it seems that any time someone actually vocally expresses confidence in their abilities, we see cries of arrogance. We’ve almost been conditioned to expect someone who’s been complimented to respond with a statement such as, “Thanks, I appreciate that, but there’s lots of other people who deserve that honor.” Now that’s often a very accurate statement, but I’ve wondered if it’s one so often used because “Thanks, I think I’m pretty damn good too” will be interpreted as cockiness. It feels like we’re teaching people not to speak with strong vernacular, not to speak with complex sentences, and not to accept the praise heaped upon them by others. All of a sudden we respond as though this person is placing themselves “above” others, which isn’t necessarily the case. I’m pretty well-read and sometimes I’ll use words that seem common to me– such as “paradigm”– and people will not know what it means. So I’ll explain it and they’ll say, “Why didn’t you just say it that way instead of using a big word that no one knows?”, the intimation often being that I’m showing off that I’m so “well-read.” And the times that I do accept compliments, responding in affirmation of the claims, the idea is that I’m being arrogant. So if someone tells me, “Wow, you’re smart” and I respond, “Yeah, thanks, I’d like to think so,” what’s the issue? Why is our automatic response to assume that the person is caught up in their own ego?

There’s no crime in being aware of your talents or having confidence in the outcome of the application of said talents. If the outcome isn’t favorable, it doesn’t mean that the confidence was without reason either. Let’s go with a hockey example: if the Canadiens have beat the Leafs in their last five outings (and we’ll assume that the lineups are the same), then if the Canadiens were to boast “We’re been strong against the Leafs and feel confident we’re going to win this one easily,” it might seem cocky, but there’d be a foundation for that claim. If the Leafs won the game, it wouldn’t mean that the Canadiens were being cocky and overestimated their capabilities. Here’s another example: if NBA star Dwayne Wade is asked if he can beat [insert name], and says he can play circles around that person, chances are he’s right, because by any standard he’s a phenomenal player. Sure, our automatic emotional response might be to want him to be more humble, but he’s simply acknowledging his own skill level and answering the question in the best way he knows how. Now there’s ways he could answer that could imply disrespect, but I’m not convinced that it’d mean he’s overconfident, and thus arrogant.

The problem, at least in my mind, is when we’re critiquing people we don’t know, or whom we know only through highly biased news sources (the new media, people with an axe to grind, etc). This isn’t a defense/indictment of John Kerry– you can form your own opinion on that– but the reaction to his words makes me wonder how we can objectively assess the arrogance of a person we don’t intimately know. Without any objective standards in place, and much of the diagnosis coming from gut instinct, is it really fair to condemn others are arrogant if we don’t know them that well?

In addition, we seem to judge arrogance based purely on emotion and without reason, which just isn’t a reliable measure. Our emotions are affected by a number of sources, in ways we don’t often understand, and so if we’re going to brand someone arrogant because it “feels” like they are, without deeper explanation into why we consider them arrogant and why that confidence is undeserved, then we’re not being very fair. If we don’t know a lot about the person, their accomplishments, and the character of their life, how are we going to know if they’ve come into this confidence from a place of reason?

I guess I’m trying to hammer home a point that I’ve touched on many times: we’re often woefully underinformed about the people and world around us. There’s a lot we all don’t know about each other, and sometimes even ourselves. Before you label someone “cocky,” it might be worth following the scientific method: formulate your hypothesis that they’re cocky and then make observations based on fact so that your conclusion is informed.

Thoughts? Comments? I freely admit that I’m sure there are aspects to the debate over confidence & arrogance that I may have missed, so feel free to contribute. Thanks to Arthur, Neal Bailey, and Dave Richards for their input.

As many have noticed, Arune.Com isn’t a huge source of political discourse. Yes, I have a section for politics, and yes, I have discussed some issues, but I really don’t like discussing politics on this blog because I don’t have the time to examine both sides of the issue as much as I feel I should. I’m not a fan of “Sound Byte Politics,” wherein you quickly link to a story, offer some pithy comments, and move along to the next story. This kind of journalism is on display in shows such as The View, many cable news programs, and talk shows. It’s also something that appears in many blogs. Now I’m not saying that anybody is wrong for reporting on the news this way, or that they’re somehow ignorant of the bigger picture, but for me, I prefer a more in-depth discourse because most political issues are fairly nuanced.

Moreover, the “SBP” kind of journalism tends to appear far too biased for its own good, not because the person reporting is necessarily biased, but because with so little information presented, many viewers will rely on their own pre-concieved notions to filter the news. Without a more rounded discussion of the facts, and a more in depth look at the issue, people are woefully underinformed. And frankly, it doesn’t help that most American news programs are so poor at delivering a truly diverse array of stories, so a lot of viewers will just not bother checking these programs. I think we’ve all had enough of people yelling at each other, and over each other, while trying to push their political party’s message.

Republicans aren’t inherently evil. Democrats don’t inherently lack fortitude & conviction. However, without really in depth news coverage in this country, we’re not giving people the information to make truly informed decisions and develop truly informed perspectives. We’ve been trained to think that the diction, vernacular, and confidence of Democrats is a sign of their cockiness and holier-than-thou attitude. We’ve been trained to think that Republicans’ adherence to religion makes them close minded and bigoted. Without the high quality of television journalism that we see in some other countries, such as Canada, we’ll see more people turn to the Internet (a far less regulated and standardized source of information) for news that may not be entirely credible.

And that is all why I don’t like to get into politics too much, unless it’s an issue in which I feel I have a good understanding of the situation. I don’t want to just parrot the views of newscasters. I don’t want to base my information on the perspective of a Bill O’Reilly, a Jon Stewart, or any other pundit. If the subject is Robert Novak, I’ve read enough about him to form a pretty solid and informed opinion. But if the subject is stem cell research, or Iraq, etc, I want to make sure that I’ve taken the time to research the subject in the way I would for a term paper. Otherwise I’m just not doing the subject any justice.

Just so there’s no confusion, this isn’t to say I don’t like political blogs, but just that I personally like to read ones where there’s more in depth and even handed reporting.

Look, if you really don’t want someone’s honest opinion, don’t ask for it. And when you get that opinion, just because it isn’t in agreement with yours, doesn’t mean that you’re being insulted or somehow you’re wrong. Not agreeing with your opinion doesn’t mean there’s a dislike for you or that it’s anything personal. Seriously, despite what the American media may say, you can love and respect someone whose politics you disagree with, or whose beliefs may differ from your set.

I’ve seen this problem arise most when people talk about entertainment that they enjoy. Look, I won’t pretend that I’m above getting caught in all this, and perhaps this is to my detriment, but I don’t care what someone else thinks about my favorite shows beyond always being interested in hearing well-reasoned praise or criticism. Even then, sometimes you just like or dislike entertainment for reasons that are hard to verbalize. What’s so wrong with that?

I was talking to my good buddy Kurt Ingram about 24 a while back and he mentioned that 102.1 The Edge (a great Toronto radio station) has a show on Tuesdays that ridicules 24. Kurt mentioned some of the criticisms, from the standard “Jack Bauer never eats, sleeps, or goes to the bathroom” to the more interesting criticisms, such as the overly intricate (and sometimes stupid) plans of the villains. Now, it just happens that I agree with those criticisms, but even if I didn’t, why should my reaction be so different? I just laughed and said those aspects didn’t bother me. It’s just television. Kurt could tell me he hates everything about 24 and it wouldn’t affect our friendship in the slightest. If I ask for his opinion and it turns out that we disagree on entertainment, why does it matter? It’s not like we’re talking about really divisive issues.

I’ve come to love the WWE again and Arthur, my best friend, thinks it’s all a bit stupid. Which is fine. It doesn’t affect us at all.

My brother loves Smallville. Along with Heroes, I think that it is one of the weakest written shows on television, but that doesn’t mean my brother has bad taste or he’s stupid. It just means we have different tastes. We just each have a different reaction to the overall entertainment value of the show. I’m not raining on his parade or trying to hurt him when I tell him I’m not a fan of the show. Sure, if I randomly kept telling him a show he likes is crap, when my opinion was not asked for, or the conversation didn’t concern the show, sure, it’d be annoying, but really, it’s just an insignificant matter. He also loved the second season of Lost and for the most part, I hated it. To each their own. If we’re going to enter into a discussion about it, it’d be immature for either of us to take it personally if we disagree. One’s like or dislike of Smallville or Lost has no bearing on someone’s personality or intelligence. I’ve grown sick of people saying that if you don’t like the latter, you don’t “Get it” or you’re some lacking the intelligence/taste to appreciate it. I might just “get it” and not care much for what I “get.”

Look, think about your favorite color. There’s probably not much of a real reason you like one color more than the other. You just do. To a large degree, that’s what it comes down to with any kind of art, from paintings to television to music. If you’re entertained, then the flaws aren’t so overwhelming that it ruins the experience for you. It isn’t anything greater or deeper.

This “all or nothing” attitude, we’re you either with or against someone, is fostered by much of the news media on either side of the political spectrum. We’re so used to seeing the important issues of our times framed by partisan rhetoric and we’re not demanding a higher quality of discourse in society. Republicans and Democrats are not inherently enemies. They both want what’s best for the country and the world. Hillary Clinton is not the devil. George W Bush is not Lex Luthor. They’re both human beings with pros and cons, just like all of us.

My good friend Augie De Blieck Jr is a unique guy in the comic book industry, not only because of his fame, but because he’s openly right wing in a very left wing industry. The knee jerk reaction of many has been to assume he’s a mindless Republican supporter. Why? Because people on both side of the political spectrum have their biases. But if you simply talk to him, ask questions about your concerns (I’m a centrist, though if anything, with a leaning to the right), you’ll see he’s a well-reasoned, well-intentioned, well-educated young man. He may have different views than me, but it doesn’t mean we have to be at each other’s throats. I have immense respect for the man and the foundation for his beliefs. Look, we all have different upbringings, different sources for news, and develop different lens for filtering all this information. That doesn’t mean we don’t want the same thing. Despite political differences, Augie and I want a better world. Period.

Look, I can understand getting upset about a person’s lack of tact and/or respect, but in the end, if you’re going to ask for someone’s opinion, you should make sure they’re someone who either has an informed point of view, or is someone you respect. Differing opinions don’t have to alter a relationship unless the people in the relationship let it happen. I’ve been guilty of it in the past, and I’ll likely be guilty of it in the future, but I’d like to believe I’ll also listen to my own advice.