Repressive governments are making Internet and technology companies allies in their efforts to censor the Internet. Without any U.S. regulation to specifically prevent this, companies like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have sacrificed international human rights standards, and their own corporate missions, in pursuit of new and lucrative markets. Ask your Representative to support H.R. 275, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007, which would prevent U.S. companies from carrying out or facilitating the suppression of online speech in repressive countries.
You can find more information here. To sign letters online urging the President and Vice President, as well as your congresspersons, to support the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007, H.R. 275, without any amendments that would hinder its ability to prevent U.S. Internet technology companies from cooperating with repressive governments attempting to limit freedom of expression and access to information, here.
I have some weird (but certainly wonderful) birthday karma with Philip Glass. As I mentioned in a recent post, I lucked into a front row seat for a solo performance of his at the Boulder Theater on my birthday two years ago.
This past Tuesday, April 22nd, was my 29th birthday. I spent it in New York City. My old and dear friend Ashley had talked to me several days prior and said, “I have a surprise for you. Be in the city by 5:30 p.m. on your birthday. And wear something nice.”
Who am I to turn down invitations like this?
I came in from New Haven on the morning of my birthday, and went immediately to Greenwich Village in order to catch an early showing of Scott Hicks’ new documentary, Glass: A Portrait of Philip in Twelve Parts, at the IFC Center. (I blogged about the film and my appreciation of Mr. Glass and his work a few days ago in this post.)
I found the film to be quite wonderful. Organized into twelve little segments that cover many of the same themes and often end abruptly (like many of Glass’ best works), it feels put together in a way that is true to how its subject seems to understand and appreciate things. The film will (and has) turned off some, who think that Hicks tends toward adulation and away from, say, a more robust portrait of an artist. Hicks is definitely a fan, having employed Glass as composer for his most recent film, No Reservations. And his style here is unusual: he tends to let his subject have his privacy when he asks for it. Though that privacy (guardedness?) is itself a big theme in the film. In one moment, after they have talked at length about other things, Hicks asks Glass about an experience with his Toltec teacher. Glass quietly responds, “I don’t talk about that.” The moment says a lot to me about Glass’ personality, even if we don’t really find out much about a particular aspect of his life.
Contrary to what many of the critics are saying, I think Hicks does explore the flaws and darker aspects of Glass. Among the friends and family who serve as talking heads, Glass’ sometimes sharp-tongued sister sheds insight on tensions in his upbringing. And I respectfully disagree with Joshua Kosman that all of the images of Glass and his family are “idyllic.” In early scenes, certainly, the family seems blissfully happy. But as we get to know Glass’ fourth wife Holly Critchlow better over the course of the film, many of the family scenes take on a sad edge. Jeannette Catsoulis writes about one especially powerful and revealing moment with her, in which she talks about how their paths have “diverged.”
While the camera clings to her massive brown eyes, the film falls awkwardly silent: like a lightning bolt on a gloomy day, her unexpected outburst is more harshly illuminating than anything that has gone before.
For me, the scenes of the family together on the beach that follow this moment are far from idyllic–they’re actually pretty devastating.
For Philip Glass fans like myself, Mr. Hicks’ film is great stuff. I was delighted to have been able to see this in theaters.
After the film, I went to the New York Buddhist Church on the Upper West Side. (More on that in a future post.) Shortly thereafter, I caught up with Ashley for dinner and then the surprise was revealed: Ashley had gotten us tickets to see the revival of Philip Glass’ Satyagraha at the Metropolitan Opera. “You like Philip Glass, right?” she said when we arrived.
I couldn’t have been happier about the surprise or more pleased with the opera, which was absolutely incredible. I knew Satyagraha well, but the inventiveness of this particular production was quite something. The use of paper and enormous puppets was really breathtaking, and the performers (especially Richard Croft as Gandhi) were tremendous. It couldn’t have been more perfect. Take a look at the New York Times video report about it below. It includes clips of the production.
(As an added bonus, the Arnold and Marie Schwartz Gallery at the Met was showing artist Chuck Close’s pieces inspired by Glass–including the piece included with the first paragraph of this post.)
Thanks to Ashley and to Mr. Glass for making my 29th natal anniversary a day to remember.
This courtesy of Bodhi Tree Swaying: the New York Times has more on the story of Spec. Jeremy Hall, the atheist whose lawsuit against the U.S. Army I first blogged about last September in this post.
The new Times piece is well worth a read. It fleshes out Hall’s case, and includes an essential passage about reports of religious discrimination in the U.S. military:
It is unclear how widespread religious discrimination or proselytizing is in the armed forces, constitutional law experts and leaders of veterans’ groups said. No one has independently studied the issue, and service members are reluctant to come forward because of possible backlash, those experts said.
There are 1.36 million active duty service members, according to the Pentagon, and since 2005, it has received 50 formal complaints of religious discrimination, Ms. Lainez said.
In an e-mail statement, Bill Carr, the Defense Department’s deputy under secretary for military personnel policy, said he “saw near universal compliance with the department’s policy.”
But Mikey Weinstein, a retired Air Force judge advocate general and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the official statistics masked the great number of those who do not report violations for fear of retribution. Since the Air Force Academy scandal began in 2004, Mr. Weinstein said, he has been contacted by more than 5,500 service members and, occasionally, military families about incidents of religious discrimination. He said 96 percent of the complainants were Christians, and the majority of those were Protestants.
Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.”
From Amnesty International:
