(UPDATE 9/16/2013: The transcript of The Guardian's original interview regarding Cumberbatch's views on Manning, et al has been placed on their site, and though his misguided quotes are still there, this does serve to soften via muddling his position a bit.

What to take away? The internets: never what they seem -- even this -- and designed for hits, full stop. Actors' -- even the smartish ones -- opinions: still generally not a great foundation to base your own views on, and who knows what they're actually thinking, though good on Cumberbatch for recognizing his power and reach, and/or simple need to preserve his reputation in attempting to clarify that he isn't a daft monster. Cumberbatch does truly own the internets, and damn, I wonder how much his publicist makes.

If you're still wondering about why anyone would care about what someone like Benedict Cumberbatch thinks is at all important: The Banality of Systemic Evil)

Okay, okay.

Giving 26 interviews a day, being thrust into the spotlight because of a starring role in something that tackles extremely complex issues, and being just a plain old human with human vanity and human verbal diarrhea are probably factors. But still, I hate when this happens.

Benedict Cumberbatch: Chelsea Manning Got What She Deserved

Ugh, so disappointing.

But [her] superiors might have been right to say to [her], it’s not your position to be worried about it within the hierarchy of the military organisation, which is why [she] had to be sentenced. [She] took an oath, and [she] broke that oath.

Lesson numero uno, actors: don't open your pie holes when it comes to politics unless you're extremely well-versed in your comprehension of the issue, and your name is Matt Damon.

If they are saving lives, how can we say that’s less important than civil liberties?

Ummmm, maybe I should just stop reading about your opinions and just enjoy the shiny shiny? Oh god, can't. stop. reading.

Isn’t it hypocritical to say, we should know everything about you as a government, but the government can’t know anything about us?

For the reals? Mayday, mayday, hurtling uncontrollably toward becoming un-Batched. Sad panda.

And now a word from our author:

What is heartbreaking about this set of sentences? Aside from the abandonment of the notion that individuals are obligated to the best of their ability to discover and struggle for what is right—especially as they grow up—it’s the contradiction involved in simultaneous claims to sympathy for one’s fellow humans and unthinking deference to authority. With this statement, Cumberbatch leaves us to wonder whether he understands that governments are run by groups of individuals who often use state power for their own underhanded purposes[...]America’s founders accepted a measure of mass insecurity to preserve the personal liberty they knew was essential to democracy and human dignity and happiness. Cumberbatch is not an American, but one could think that the last two-and-a-half centuries of Western fealty to this idea might have made an impression on him.

Thank you for writing what I've been thinking, Alexander Reed Kelly.

Oh Japan, you so crazy.



















This, in combination with the eroding walls of internet privacy, are going to cause some problems, I'll tell you what. Off to sequester myself in a hidey-hole in the Canadian tundra...

I know it seems like I'm always posting about wife-beaters and sexual predators when it comes to privacy and civil rights, so let me say again, for real, it's not because of sympathy.

As a society, we knee-jerk when it comes to anything about these two button-pushing populations. We will sacrifice anything -- with nary a glance at how it may pan out in the long run -- ostensibly to protect ourselves, and that's what I find troubling.

So it was with interest that I have been following the match.com plan to check their user lists against sex offender registries, in the wake of a lawsuit against the company by a woman who says she was assaulted by a "match." All kinds of wrong, and the stellar Electronic Frontier Foundation (love them so much) says it best:

Sexual Predators, Please Check Here: Match.com’s Deeply Flawed Plan to Screen for Sex Offenders

I've heard people say, "if you don't like the policies, just don't use match (or FB, or insert-social-media-site-here)" but whether these policies are misguided, panic-induced, or actually well thought out ways for companies and the guvmint to work their way into your life, they have implications far beyond simply stringing up those we find distasteful "for the children" blah blah blah, and far beyond sites you just decide not to use.

Ugh, one step forward for civil rights, and then two steps back, courtesy of the myopic sheep of California.

No Refuge For Domestic Violence Perpetrators

[California] Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, a San Francisco Democrat, has pushed for an online registry of men and women convicted of domestic violence. But her effort has gone nowhere because of concerns it would lead to reprisals or could mistakenly put innocent people on the danger list...Ma says she'll try again but will need support from her critics.

aaaaaaannnnnnd...

No Halloween for Sex Offenders

...the Tulare County (of course) Board of Supervisors has passed a new measure banning sex offenders from decorating for Halloween or answering the door for trick-or-treaters...Public Defender Michael Sheltzer has raised concerns about the legality of the bill under state law and the First Amendment. After all, these people have served their time...

"After all, these people have served their time." Are we to believe that your civil rights are different after you have done your time? This is a slippery slope we are treading.

Now, before everyone gets their panties in a knot thinking that I have sympathy for sex offenders and wife-beaters, this is actually what I think: 1) some humans are vile, ignorant creatures who jump to wild conclusions about everything, want to blame everyone but themselves for their predicaments, and live in fear-filled boxes, all the while refusing to parent their own children lest they be blamed for screwing them up, and 2) civil rights are civil rights.

Besides the fact that I had an 18 year old friend in high school who had to ridiculously register as a child predator for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend because her parents needed someone to suffer for the shame they felt, I also recognize that when we start chipping away at the civil rights of true undesirables (read: real child rapists, men who beat women, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc.), it is just a small skip-jump to trampling on someone's rights because oh, say, a community doesn't like child-free couples, or single moms, or people who aren't white or heterosexual. Or people who are JUST LIKE YOU.

My friend Brian just posted this on Facebook; we'd be wise to remember it.

The privacy and dignity of our citizens are being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen -- a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a person's life.

William O. Douglas