Avatar: Anti-Military and Pro-Ecoterrorism?

I’ve been reading several places where people are in an uproar over the movie Avatar—one of the highest-grossing films of all time, in spite of its release only one month ago. The issue is that several notable conservatives seem to think that this fictional film is promoting a message that ecoterrorism is justified, and giving an anti-military message as well.

I can see their point. But I don’t agree with it. I certainly can’t see that anything particularly terrorist was done in the film (though defense of themselves through the destruction of a camera seemed reasonable to me, given the circumstances in the film, even if there might be a later price to pay). The “military” forces in the film were clearly no longer in the military—they were wash-outs and misfits, hired by a corporation. To me, this isn’t anti-military, but rather a call to responsible activity by those who hire security personnel which are too aggressive.

Other lessons I think I saw:

• Money tends to be too much the focus of what people want, to the exclusion of moral thought—and this leads to confrontations over money.
• Our historical treatment of the native peoples of many lands (not just North America) tends to be more savage than the “savages” are. Some of this was necessary; most of it was not.
• When we see a connection to something, it is nearly impossible to un-see it.
• When people learn true principles, it is difficult also to fail to see the truth.
• Actions speak louder than words.

There is a long list of  others, but these seem to be the best of the lot. So, what about the anti-corporate message?

This is certainly a part which is present, but it’s less anti-corporate than it is pro-responsibility. A responsible corporation which is accountable to the public interest should see that there is more at stake than their bottom line. The people in the film were no more or less evil than the executives at AT&T who conspired to tap hundreds of millions of telephones without a warrant, or no more or less evil than those who seek to eliminate all competition in the marketplace, rather than to allow a true free market. They are no more or less evil than corporate executives who seek to corrupt Washington politicians by ensuring that their own interests are served above those of the population.

Money is really the focus of business, and people can’t seem to live without it. So, it’s true that money is important. But there are also other things to consider. For example, we should consider the reasons for obtaining money in the first place: we need to live, to support family and self, and to address our obligations to others. Without these reasons, of what purpose is money? Money is certainly important, but it’s far from the most important thing, and far too many people focus on it as their top priority.

The next time you’re with someone you love, consider the money it takes to spend time with them. Money itself is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. When we die, money is pointless to have in our possession. It is left to those who are still living.

And yet we tend to take the position that everyone is really too focused on currency, at the same time scrambling to make ends meet, worrying about the economy instead of finding ways to create new jobs for those around us, and in all ways finding excuses not to have to work.

Which brings me to another lesson learned by the film: fiscal responsibility. The line about unobtainium (nice name, by the way) being “twenty million a kilo” is one of those expository lines which shows just how invaluable life itself is.

There are more important things than money. But how many people can honestly say that they put those things first?

That’s the real lesson: putting what is truly important as one’s first priority is the fastest way to earn opposition. And that’s why the film is so highly rated by the population. It’s not so much that people identify with ecoterrorist activities, or that they are against corporations, or even that life itself is more important than money. It’s that people who actually have their priorities in line are often the first people to get assassinated.

We think of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and even people who aren’t dead yet, and how they each influence our thinking, but how the opposition despised them! The only way to be rid of them was to silence them forever. Today, we don’t kill them, we merely arrange a gossip column to scandalize them.

In a free republican democracy, the expressions of others show how our principles operate. They show what we truly value by action, and this can allow us to correct those values.

But the value we should respect most of all is that of the freedom to think. I don’t criticize these ultra-conservatives for believing as they do; nor the ultra-liberals for saying that perhaps the movie could have illustrated the point more plainly. To both, I merely point out the box office figures and say: “You’re wrong. The public perception is satisfied with this, the correct principle of conservationism.”

A conservative value in itself, responsibility depends on achieving and maintaining the moral high ground, not in merely maintaining power at all costs. This was the point of the American Revolution in the 1760’s and 1770’s, it was the point of the US Civil War in the 1860’s, and it was the point of the militia groups in the 1990’s. We simply cannot stand by and watch all of our future resources go to waste; neither can we strip all of the resources from an area and expect to survive. And survival is the key—not money, not politics, not even law itself. This is why democracy was invented: when the survival instincts of the population speak, it is with a voice so powerful that very little short of death itself can stop them.

But unless all life is ended, an idea can never be killed.

Iran’s Political Turmoil

In a vote, where the will of the people is supposed to prevail, the system of voting is essential to the processes which keep the will of the people in power. Stealing, rigging, or otherwise cheating elections might get someone some temporary power, but in the end the people will have their voices heard.

In the past couple of days, the result of the elections in Iran has been enlightening. But of import is not what’s happening now—which will certainly resolve itself, for good or ill—but in the crackdown on freedoms of speech which occurred prior to the elections. They started by blocking Facebook, only to reinstate it within hours. Then they tried to block SMS messaging (which everyone who texts on their phone should be familiar with). They tried to block (or possibly jam) BBC Persia. People don’t like to be stifled; once they realize that they can be heard, they get a taste for free speech. It’s a bit like offering purified water: everything else is a pale comparison once you taste it.

Democracy itself is the reason for the Iranian turmoil. While we cannot possibly know what Iran is going through without being there, the pictures which have been leaked seem to paint a fairly clear picture of political unrest. The will of the people will be decided. These people appear ready for change. We shall see.

Politicians and activists were arrested. The Basij militia (loyal to the incumbent) fired into a crowd, striking one man in the neck. Protesters attacked a group of militia and set their motorcycles aflame. Eight protesters were killed on June 15th. Molotov cocktails burn in the streets. University dormitories have been raided. The press has been prohibited from leaving their offices, in particular the foreign press. And through it all, civil liberties are suspended or chilled.

This is starting to look more like a civil war than it is anything else. Let’s all pray that it doesn’t come to that.

UPDATE: Special thanks @ernestina@Twitter for the photos:

Protesters are turning out for peaceful protest in the tens of thousands!

Leaders in Iran BUSTED Photoshopping

Marriage, Government, and Privacy

It's another long one, folks.

Just so that we’re clear on one point: I’m a straight man. For me, the right thing is a man-woman relationship. But I also recognize the importance of the legal protections that marriage provides, and I’m against banning same-sex marriages on the grounds of one’s right to privacy. This isn’t to say that I’m pro-gay or anti-gay, but that I’m anti-interference on the part of the government. Government might be served with registering marriage in order to prevent harm, but sanctioning marriage on the part of the government encroaches on the civil liberty of privacy.

California passed Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages after the Mormon Church pressured the population to vote in a given way (something I take personal issue with, as this activity was in direct violation of the laws which are intended to prevent churches, as powerful organizations which have an enormous amount of influence, from involvement in politics). Iowa and most of New England will have same-sex marriages within the year if they don’t have it already. With this specifically in mind, I’ve been giving thought to the issue.

While I was at first against the idea of controlling marriage, I didn’t know why. Over the course of many weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that allowing or disallowing marriage by the government is against the founding ideas of democracy—it’s an invasion of privacy for government to do anything which seeks to limit or promote marriages (though preventing harm is another matter, which I’ll get into later).

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 is ultimately to blame for the current controversy. In that act, marriage is defined as the legal union of one man and one woman, though it permits individual states to adopt their own stances. DOMA provides only the Federal Government’s stance. It ultimately circumvents the right for consenting adults to legally commit themselves to one another.

Many insurance companies already protect unmarried couples who live together under a family-style policy—not because they have to, but because it’s just good business. Interestingly enough, this point may show that the ability to commit on the part of these individuals is somewhat more limited and less stable. Conversely, they are also under a great deal more pressure.

The issue of same-gender marriages is also an issue where heterosexual couples are concerned. The sanctity of marriage hasn’t been an issue in decades, because heterosexual couples will get married at the drop of a hat without caring whether or not religious groups approve. Those who choose cohabitation without marriage are afforded some rights, but if opposite-gender couples who oppose government intrusion through marriage speak out, they are painted in a much different light: they aren’t simply disaffected couples in the same way that same-sex couples are, they’re “living in sin” or “bucking the system” because they oppose the very thing that same-sex couple want: government sanctioning of what constitutes a family unit.

Originally, there was no position on marriage within the government. The reason for this is unclear, but one thing is for certain: marriage was essentially unregulated until the middle of the 1800’s, when the Mormons began practicing polygamy. Because this was essentially a point of morality, no government position could be afforded. It was an invasion of privacy, because people didn’t like the idea that a commitment could be to more than one partner (a concept that a lot of people today might still agree with on a personal level). Coupled with the tendency for polygamy-practicing Mormons to tend to have tight controls over the people they are married to (and keeping in mind the not-too-distant past with sixteen-year-old girls being forced to marry their uncles), having laws in place to limit marriage seems like a good idea, if only to prevent harm.

But the real harm is in having controls which are in place to prevent harm which has never been demonstrated, and which does not clearly delineate to homosexual relationships. To this, I say: “prove the harm, and I might reconsider.” Stating that harm is done is not the same as being able to prove that harm is the result.

Let’s switch gears for a moment. With the Supreme Court’s ruling that sex between consenting adults behind closed doors isn’t the business of the state, the issue of marriage seems to fall neatly into the same category of the state interfering with the individual rights of people who generally want nothing more than to have a legally-protected union with all of the protections that a marriage affords. Calling marriage by a different name is basically redefining the color “pink” to “a shade of light red” and then making a separation. It’s also asking for a reduction or increase in status at a later time, as homosexuals are a minority population. The problem here is, many churches don’t want gay couples to raise a child, especially gay men. Women should be the ones raising babies, according to the traditions of most of these organizations. The problem is, so many people are simply unequipped for being a parent that children get put up for adoption all the time. Let’s now look at a real-life example of someone I consider an uncle.

In 1995, a friend of my father’s (they were friends in high school and worked together for a few years—and no, my dad’s not gay to either his or my knowledge) actually qualified for adoption of a three-year-old girl in California. Being a single man, he had a lot of proving to do, and was ultimately allowed the right to raise this child. In 2000, he married his partner, only to have that marriage nullified later. With the nullification of the marriage, he once again had to prove that the child was in no danger, and that he was perfectly qualified as a parent. There was literally no other reason for the state to do this. Yet he continued his qualification, and the girl’s residence was not changed. Imagine the damage to the little girl’s psyche because she would have been uprooted from everything she had ever known. Imagine being separated from the only parent she had known—not because of a lack of care or love, but because the state decided that his sexual proclivities weren’t appropriate to being a family, based on religious pressures.

That young girl, now 17 (she turns 18 next year), has an active high-school life which includes a boyfriend, going to social activities, and she has really good grades: she’s qualified for a scholarship at Princeton University (a member of the Ivy League) in the field of mechanical engineering—and her grades are good enough that she won’t have to complete the last year of high school to get her diploma. She’s also sexually abstinent, because she doesn’t want to ruin her chances of completing college with an unplanned pregnancy. She’s also tolerant of all kinds of things, but she likewise believes that the government shouldn’t interfere in personal relationships. All of this, because of the values her two fathers taught her.

I’d say the issue of upbringing is one which should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and isn’t something that can be covered with a blanket statement. One can’t simply claim that all homosexuals are evil, deviant perverts who have the sole aim of converting the population to their collective wills. The truth of the matter is that my “uncle” has raised a beautiful and intelligent young lady, one who believes in the potential of humanity, and one who understands personal responsibility. She plans to be active in voting, because she’s seen how voter turnout can change the outcome of an election. Nothing could be more plain to someone who sees the pain that living an alternative lifestyle has wrought on her parents—one that they believe that they don’t have much choice in. They believe it to be a matter of biology, whereas most religious organizations seem to view it more as a matter of choice.

Family is therefore a nonissue, where upbringing is concerned. Perfectly healthy individuals can result from same-sex couples—and really, most of the same-sex relationships that do wind up long-term that I have personally witnessed seem to be far more healthy than their heterosexual counterparts. This isn’t to say that one is healthier than the other; rather, that one person’s experience (mine) is that the impact on the overall health of society where same-gender couples are concerned seems to be positive. I’m sure that empirical study could bear this out.

Tolerance, and not repression or oppression, are the key to making this into a “win”. By creating laws which make a sector of the population unable to take advantage of the privileges that others have, we inadvertently create a minority which can qualify for privileges based on that minority status. Affording the protections and equal status of a marriage to these people creates stability in our society, and reduces disaffectation—the key ingredient in most revolts. And keeping the government’s nose out of our private lives is always good when there’s nothing harmful occurring. Homosexuality isn’t harmful: it’s merely a genetic aberration: a mutation which causes people to be attracted to those who are physically alike to themselves. And if we allow it, we ultimately create the conditions for it to dwindle in the long-run, since forcing people into situations where they have children furthers the genetics (the Darwin factor). People who are against homosexuality might consider that aspect.

“Living in sin” isn’t as much of a fear as it was in times past. With the demand for police to take care of the violent side of society, the threat of eternal damnation just doesn’t hold much in the way of fear to those who believe that God creates everything in nature (and “the devil made me do it” isn’t a valid claim any more). And for those who don’t believe in God, it means not having to worry about some religious nuts determining what you’re allowed to do or not, based on concepts which may be hundreds, if not thousands, of years out of date.

It’s a democracy, not a theocracy. Human beings control the fates of human beings in this system. And if human beings aren’t willing to exercise a little tolerance and extend the rule of law to protect all people regardless of political status, they will discover that they are someday a minority, and so ultimately their own protections may be removed (and be justified in doing so, even if that justification is unfounded).

It ultimately boils down to the right to privacy: the right of individuals to exercise their beliefs, so long as that exercise doesn’t harm others. It’s why the Supreme Court had to invalidate “sexual position” laws and resultingly made homosexuality legal in the United States between consenting adults. It’s also why we don’t have public security cameras in our public bathrooms, or in our homes (or even pointed into our living rooms, for that matter). Privacy is so fundamental to democracy that any encroachment should be viewed as an attack on democracy as a whole. The Mormon Church stuck its neck out and influenced a political decision (counter to the laws of a religious nonprofit, and therefore against the interests of law and order—flatly illegal activity, in other words), and in doing so eroded the right to individual privacy. When a religious group in Utah can influence the outcome in a vote in California, someone has to put a stop to it. And it erodes the religious group’s own rights, as well. In stopping them, we protect their rights as well as those of other religious groups.

The issue of a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages is really kind of necessary in order to overrule the Defense of Marriage Act, because getting Congress to repeal something like that will require not only… well, an Act of Congress, but also a load of support, and an overwhelming majority of people to accomplish enough comfort on the part of the elected officials, who won’t be re-elected if they continue to sell out the rights of individuals. They are in a tough spot, those elected blokes, because they’re not really allowed to vote their conscience, if their conscience is counter to the will of their constituents.

Politically, this hot-button issue seems to be focused only on same-sex marriage. I recommend that the issue be removed entirely, and that government encroachment on individual belief and therefore liberty be put to an end. This is at the core of the right to privacy, and therefore core to democracy.

On Being a Badass

This is gonna be long. Apologies to those who are short on time.

Going through YouTube recently, I came across a video of a man who was being arrested. The officers refused to notify him of any particular charge, other than suggesting that he resisted arrest (which, actually, probably wouldn’t stand up in court, being that the original arrest was not an informed arrest either). The man being arrested tried to be reasonable at first, and then he played the “crazy religious nut” card (he may even have been serious, I don’t know enough about the situation to say). And the officers then tased him, immediately after which he got up and ran away—much to the officers’ surprise.

This seemed like a blatant violation of rights, because the officers wouldn’t tell him what reason they had for arresting him. But in fact, no actual rights were violated. It still seemed wrong to me. The use of the Taser didn’t seem well-justified. Tasers are potentially lethal weapons. They would have done better to shoot the man in the leg with a sidearm—the chances of lethality are about the same, actually. But the fact that it didn’t do much to the guy seems to imply that the unwritten “no harm, no foul” law of the universe. I’m sure that religious zealots will point out that his prayer to Eloheim for protection had something to do with it. I’ve seen such reactions without prayer. The prayer was incidental at best.

But then we have the “Don’t Taze Me, Bro” guy in Florida, and numerous other incidents where the use of a Taser was accomplished and not well-justified. A Taser is not a “control device”; it is not a “restraint device”; and it is not a “medical device:”: it is a “certified non-lethal weapon” which has a history of lethal results. I’ll write a blog entry on that alone. The point of this is to show that even police can sometimes have bad judgment, and are prone to stress and illogical thinking. Without getting into too much depth, this leads police to be on a kind of power trip, and one which does more harm than good to society. Enough depth. For now, let me get to my real point: firearms and how I’m something of a badass, apparently, because of the way that I don’t like guns.

I want to preface the following by saying that I do have a great deal of respect for police. Stress levels are high, and this can sometimes cloud judgment and clear thought. Being a cop is a tough job, and while you’re in the uniform people don’t tend to respond positively to you. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not generally personal. I understand why some cops do what they do; but power trips shouldn’t go unchecked—not even if the result is good. Cops on power trips don’t necessarily need to go to court, but if police departments aren’t willing to check their own officers where this is concerned, then the only recourse is civil action. Leaving things unchecked, or presenting a “unified front” where an officer may have been wrong can only be detrimental to the rule of law. If the rule of law doesn’t apply to police, then police are the most dangerous gang in existence. Some gangs already treat them this way.

Put another way: it’s tough to be a cop, and it’s tough to follow the law because of how complex laws are. But if police are above the laws they enforce, and cannot withstand the microscope of public scrutiny, then their utility cannot be justifiable. Simply whining about how hard the job is makes you a whiner; it doesn’t justify your actions any more than whining about being abused excuses a criminal from the crimes they commit. Nobody should be above the law, least of all those who enforce it. And I mean least of all.

Officers in lots of places seem to be on a power trip, and often seek to remove any kind of empowerment on the part of those they’re interacting with. In some cases, this disempowerment makes their jobs easier, particularly where dealing with someone who is clearly being irrational themselves. But where it doesn’t work, how about trying logic and reason? A little actual critical reasoning might go a long way to preventing repeat crimes, and it might actually serve to create a little respect for the badge, instead of engendering disdain for the power trips that many of the people who wear badges embody. The embodiment of a power trip is not where the enforcement of law should be. Humility and accountability should be the rule, not the exception.

We had a police officer come to our place a while back, and I’m sure I didn’t make a great impression, but it was because I was actually pretty pissed off at the way things were handled. One officer asked if she could come in, and I refused entry on the grounds that I don’t allow firearms of any kind in the house, citing numerous incidents where local officers had not used their firearms in ways I considered justifiable. I told them that either they had to leave their sidearm with another officer, or find someone who wasn’t carrying. They asked if they needed to get a warrant. I informed them that even with a warrant, I had the right to request that no firearms enter my home unless they had a compelling reason. They didn’t. Therefore, a warrant would not be a solution to this issue.

My lawyer was so proud when I told her. Seriously.

When the officer without a firearm came in (forty-five minutes later; I stayed by the door and kept it open the entire time to ensure that they didn’t think I was trying to actually hide anything), they saw my swords, and they saw a bow-and-quiver (no arrows) mounted on the wall near the door. The quiver, I bought through a catalog as decoration (it’s a Legolas-like quiver). The bow is a traditional kind: no pulleys, just a big hunk of wood with a white leather string on it, and it belonged to my great grandfather, who claimed a Native American (of the Chippewa tribe, I think he said) had taught him how to make it (it looks to me more like a European style, but… meh, it was his story about his friend, and I’m positive he believed it). It’s non-functional: the wood was uncared-for during a garage stay of over twenty years, and though I have been trying to work linseed oil into it, the wood just isn’t up to use (having split in four places from drying out). While admiring the bow (which he hadn’t had permission to touch), this officer asked me why I didn’t like guns. I didn’t have a good answer: I just don’t like them. But I’ve been thinking about it for months, now. More on that later. I answered him: “I just don’t. They annoy me.”

The officer’s next question really bugged me, though: “So, what do you have against the Second Amendment?” I have to say, I’m hard to offend, but that assumptive leap in logic really seemed out of the blue, and uncalled for. I believe that I have the choice to say what’s right for me. I do not believe that my own comfort should be forced on others.

Thus, I’m pro-Second Amendment. I think the right to keep and bear arms is an important check and balance against the tyranny of government which continues to threaten us (and which has never really abated in the history of governments, though somewhat mitigated in our own form—not ideal, but the closest to the mark). Firearms are intended to convey the threat of violent uprising to the government, so that the government’s aim is to satisfy the public’s best interests. At least, this was what was conveyed by those who wrote and signed the US Constitution—our Founding Fathers—in many a quotation thrown around today (especially Andrew Jackson’s “tree of liberty” quote). Even so, I won’t be a party to violence for as long as I have a choice in the matter that doesn’t make me choose my own survival as the only other option.

Even with President Obama’s apparent benevolence, there are other elements I just don’t—and probably never will—fully trust. That trust is gone: unearned, unless they find a way to earn it back (and I have to say, though I fully support Obama’s stated aims during his campaign, I’m still watching to see if the government as a whole is capable of earning my trust back).

I can’t place faith in a government that claims to serve the people, and then sells out consumer protections to the highest corporate bidder. This is the very definition of fascism: the merging of corporate and government interests. This nation wasn’t intended to be a fascist republic; it’s a republic, certainly: but operated under the principles of democracy. And those principles say that what hurts public interests is bad for the government—in spite of how well it lines a politician’s pockets. And merely redefining public interests to justify one’s actions is just low. As in: below the belt. Simply changing the definition might make something technically legal, but it doesn’t fool the public: not really. They still know it’s wrong. And so should those in power. They apparently don’t get that they need outside input, and neither does the public. If the public got that, more people would be needed to answer phones for the US Congress, in both the House and the Senate.

Many within the government really want to strip weapons from the public (including President Obama), on the basis that disarming the population makes that population safer. I couldn’t disagree more. More on that disagreement below. On to what I actually explained to the officer:

When one has a firearm, one tends to justify its use after the fact of using it. If you carry a firearm as a matter of habit or duty, I believe that you will ultimately use it. I’ve lived in the worst parts of the US (in the worst parts of many major cities noted for their high violent crime rates), and I’ve seen all kinds of things I didn’t want to see, and that I would rather not have to remember. I’ve had friends who were into crime. I had these people as friends, because I don’t want them as enemies, as they tend to have a difficult time with the concept of neutrality. If I’m not with them, then I’m against them. I’m not allowed indifference. These friends just can’t afford to work like that.

My home as a safe haven meant that I didn’t let them have guns in my home, either. They didn’t always respect our arrangement. But the whole time I was required to deal with living in a criminally-oriented situation, in a bad neighborhood, or whatever the case was, I never once put my hands on any kind of weapon in defense of my home. Why? Because I stay out of others’ business affairs. I’m a friend, not a business associate. What ill they do, that’s their business. And so long as their trouble doesn’t knock on my door, I have to accept that this arrangement works. Likewise, I keep to myself and try not to bother other people. They generally don’t think I have much of value (especially when they see exposed electronics and old TV-style CRT monitors, which implies that the stuff running is too old to be of any real worth). When I explained this to the cop, he retorted with a dismissal: “So, you think you’re a badass because you can defend your home without a gun?”

I still roll my eyes at that. Say what? When did I say “defend”? What part of what I said painted me as a badass? Yeah, that’s me: the badass who doesn’t want firearms in his home because he finds them morally offensive. The badass who preaches peace and harmony and goes to great lengths to try to promote the idea of them. The badass who tells an officer to uphold the law in a way that the particular officer finds uncomfortable. Is there a badass to be had in that? I mean, I’m not Kwai-Chang Kane: I don’t really know a significant amount about Kung Fu or whatever. The truth is, he was just itching for a reason to try to arrest me, and justify that warrant anyway. I didn’t give it to him, badly as he wanted it.

So, apparently, my badass self (being a fat, almost-middle-aged man with minor but chronic health problems) walked the officer around his home, showing him the insides of drawers and a laundry hamper next to the window, so that they wouldn’t have to get a warrant and actually rip my house apart because some brainless addict used my window as a dump zone during a chase. It pissed me off (their claiming a need to intrude into my home and check through closed drawers, etc., though I was clearly not involved), but they did actually find the drugs where the addict was seen tossing them (they were on the window ledge outside the window), and to their credit, the cops have left me alone after that. I just didn’t appreciate the attitude or the invasion of my privacy, that’s all. I said so. And they left. I haven’t had them back over. Water under the bridge? No. It still pisses me off.

I mean, really: I’m such a badass. Yep, yep, yep. People cower in fear at my demands for peace, right? Suuuure.

I was trying to cooperate and maintain the principles my children have seen demonstrated in numerous situations; instead, I got treated as though I was doing something wrong and trying to hide something. My crime: living in the path that some druggie chose during a who-knows-how-long foot chase through several neighborhoods, and having convictions which do not permit firearms under my roof. Could it have ever occurred to that officer that I’m actually not into drugs, and that I don’t make a habit out of police visits because of attitudes like his? And people wonder why cops aren’t well-liked. It’s power trips like that which make me not trust their firearms in the first place. The lady cop outside had enough respect to ask questions about my beliefs, instead of simply making assumptions. The assumptions were offensive. She told me she was complaining to the other officer’s superior on my behalf, because he was intentionally baiting me—and that, apparently, was something of a violation of internal policies of conduct. It was the first I’d heard of that particular department trying to check and balance. That woman has my gratitude. I’ve never had a more positive experience with a police officer. More like her, and my own faith in law enforcement would definitely be on the mend.

I hate being put on the defensive. With cops like these, who needs a criminal element? I feel more threatened by having those kinds of officers than I do living in a high-crime neighborhood.

I do have to say, though: thinking about why I don’t like guns did bring me to kind of a philosophical point about lots of things. That was productive. Plus, they didn’t technically violate my rights, even if they violated my sensibilities. These were generally-good cops, faced with too many unknowns to be comfortable. And they handled it with about as much grace as they could muster. The one lady cop was about as graceful as it gets. I wrote a letter of thanks and commendation to her department, explaining the situation. I’m pretty sure it went nowhere, but I have to say, she impressed the hell outta me. I found out later that she’s no longer a cop, and that she took a job as a private bodyguard for some executive’s family. If she’s reading this, ever, she’ll know whom she is. If she remembers who I am, she has my thanks, and that of my family. I just wish I had the money to rate hiring someone like her, because that’s the kind of positive influence I want my kids to see.

And she was hot, too, but that’s not the point. (NOTE: I’m checking over my shoulder at this point for my lady’s eyes. She nods, commends me on being honest, and continues about her own projects.)

The one unarmed cop was the worm in the apple. There was a second cop who entered, but he didn’t speak to me more than professional requirements dictated (and I’m actually glad for that, since I was in an increasingly-irrational mood). If they’d pressed me for another hour or two, I’m sure I might have verbally snapped at them, started telling the officer I had a problem with him, and told them to either get a warrant or another officer. As it was, the visit seemed like six hours. It was, in reality, 18 minutes. When you’re pissed off and not used to it, that’s an eternity of self-control.

Enough about my being a badass and pissed off about poorly-justified power and control. On to some reasons I don’t like guns (outlined as notes for—believe it or not—brevity):

• Firearms allow one to distance themselves from the destruction and possibly death that they are inflicting.
  • This lessens the impact of death, and makes it easier to dole out.
  • It creates the opportunity to convince yourself that what has been done is less than what it is. And this, to me, is the primary mistake that firearms are.
• They’re just too damn noisy.
  • Nothing says “I’m giving away my position to an enemy” like the rat-tat-tat of automatic fire.
    • If they already know where you are, that’s another thing altogether: do what is needed to survive. But survival is not the issue, here: my personal like or dislike of guns is the issue.
• A firearm’s only purpose is destruction. It can only fulfill its purpose with that end.
  • Destructive potential is not always dispensed in a predictable, orderly way.
  • Violence is the result of a person’s destructive potential, and this can only be amplified by a firearm.
  • Guns may not operate themselves, but the capacity for destruction is amplified by their inclusion in any activity or environment (yes, even underwater).
• Silencers are rarely silent in real life: the “zip” of bullets on TV as they come out of a silencer is not only unrealistic in itself, they never include the sound of the weapon’s mechanisms racking as the recoil from firing the shot occurs. It’s loud, people: someone in the next room will hear you.
  • Nobody shows realistic gun operation on TV or in movies (as a general rule, with one or two notable exceptions). This glorifies the use of firearms, makes them sexy and powerful. Generally, not to the right kinds of people.
  • The people who tend to want to own a gun are the same as those who want to go on a power trip. Not in every case, but the rule does hold in a generalized way. A lot of it has to do with the ways that guns’ relationships to injury and death are portrayed in popular media.
  • Silencers are only one example. Virtually any other kind can be demonstrated, as well.
  • Censorship with regard to blood and death is harmful, in that the horrors of injury and death are woefully misrepresented as being gloriously clean. There’s nothing glorious about it: it’s horrific. It should be represented as such, rather than being sanitized and therefore glorified.
• Irresponsible gun ownership causes tens of thousands of deaths per year.
  • There’s not a legal requirement to go to a gun safety course when one buys a firearm. As such, legal firearms can be more dangerous to those who own them than to those they are intended to protect against.
  • Responsible gun ownership is not taught on public television. One has to pay cash for it. The aim of budget-making lawmakers is therefore not in protecting the public, but in ensuring that the wealthy can be safe.
    • Imagine the kind of production which could be made if Congress dropped $50 million into a four-hour educational course which was free to the public.
• Illegal firearms bought and sold on the black market are unaffected by any kind of law. This is because criminals don’t obey laws, by definition. As such, laws to control gun ownership cannot prevent ownership by someone who is truly determined to do harm. Such laws only makes it more difficult to legally obtain firearms, and make illegal channels more attractive.
  • Restrictions on what kinds of weapons might be legally bought or sold limit only those who are willing to obey the law, and empower those who are willing to break the law.
    • Controls over the flow of guns to the black market are impossible to enforce, because even police fall victim to theft of their firearms. Guess where these stolen pistols and rifles wind up?
    • Theft is against the law. If criminals who steal guns are unwilling to follow that law, and the object they steal is used for ending life, what makes a legislator believe that stricter penalties are a deterrent? The answer is not more restrictions, but more intelligent solutions to the actual issues.
  • Notable tragedies have occurred, and continue to occur, because there’s no way to legally control the black market. Education, and not propaganda, is the only real solution for something like this.
  • The gun industry has no accountability (and don’t need it) for the use of their product; only in whether or not their product is of good quality. However, there is little oversight on the control of their distribution channels, which are vulnerable. This lack of taking responsibility makes me loathe the very existence of firearms.
  • The fact that guns are created at all causes the black market issue; not whether the person owning it is legal or not. Legality has little bearing on ownership. Because guns are created, they are automatically dangerous.
• I hate guns because of Chuck Norris. Okay, and every other martial artist who isn’t typically portrayed using a weapon.
  • You don’t have to reload a sword or a fist.
  • It’s harder to take someone’s hands away than it is any weapon. Weapons which are taken away can be used against the person who brought them in.
  • Damaging a hand takes it out of commission; damaging a weapon only makes it more dangerous to those in close proximity to it.
  • With the correct training, a hand is also far more lethal and far less random than a firearm, but the “safety” on that kind of a weapon is far more effective, and far more obvious when it’s disengaged.
    • My one and only Chuck Norris joke (one I’m sure even he might appreciate):
      • Chuck Norris is the safety mechanism for his fists.
• I’d hazard a guess and say that less than 1% of all firearm use in the world is for the production of food. It should be closer to 99%.
  • Were it closer to 99%, I would say that my ownership of a gun for that purpose would outweigh my distaste for them. As things stand now, I won’t even go deer hunting during the bow hunt for fear of being shot by some idiot with a rifle (yes, it has actually happened, though not to me).

These are not all of the reasons, but it’s a good beginning. I firmly believe that if gun ownership was actually required by law, fewer criminals would want them.

Some final notes: the only way to make firearms less of a problem is to increase access to them for law-abiding citizens. This seems backwards, but it has worked in practice in the past. Also, creating “weapon-free zones” ensures that those who abide by this rule are disarmed if someone who doesn’t abide by the rule happens to want to take power over them. Ensuring that people don’t get hurt means increasing access to things like concealed weapons permits. When criminals can’t tell who is or isn’t carrying, they are less likely to want to take a risk to their own lives. I will never carry a firearm. Ever—regardless of legality, I don’t like them. But I think more people should consider carrying one. Such considerations make for the beginnings to well-informed decisions.

Psychology, and not restrictive legality, is where the solution can be found.

Ain’t that just badass?

The Intelligence Game and Democracy

Having had several friends who have been or currently are members of the intelligence community, I've had a unique perspective on the entire purpose of intelligence, and how and why the "spy game" works internationally. Having OC or NOC makes no real difference to the people who aren't in intelligence: all they know is that anyone working with the CIA is likely working as a spy for someone. And spies kill people, drive luxury sports cars, wear Armani suits, and have lots of guns all over the place. At least, that's what Hollywood sells. And Hollywood's great at selling lies.

However, there are some realities to face, for those who decide to enter this highly risky field: the sports cars are rentals, only assassins really intentionally kill people, Armani knock-offs are not very expensive, and the only gun is a field-issued service pistol which stays locked at the embassy most of the time. Real spy work is un-sexy, boring, and a horrific way to spend any time. Once you retire, you still have the same issues finding a girlfriend that you did before. And if you ever tell anyone that you yourself worked for an intelligence agency without a good reason, you place them in danger.

There are four ways that a spy dies: killed by the enemy (rare, but it does happen from time to time), old age (also rare, but it happens), suicide (fairly common), and hypertension (let's face it: diet goes out the window in the international scene, and it's hard to regain once you come back home). Forget neat little assassinations in broad daylight: spies who die are captured, taken into a dark hole, and shot in the back of the head if it's not personal, and let's just leave it at "less pretty than that" if it happens to be personal.

Which is why it's hard for anyone sane to really become a sexy field agent. In the intelligence field, you have limited options for a normal life. You are permanently damaged goods upstairs once you're in. You do what you do because it's important, not because it pays great (it doesn't) or because you get lots more ladies (if you weren't getting them before, being a spy won't increase your chances... well, not a lot).

There are three kinds of motivators for spies: money, respect, and ideas. Those who are motivated by ideas are the best spies in the world: easy to train, hard to break, and dedicated to the task's cause in a way that the others just can't compete with. Those motivated by money or respect can be corrupted, and they tend to really only do as much as the money or power being offered is worth to them. Ideas, on the other hand, are priceless. They can't be bought or sold with mere possessions, such as money or respect.

As such, money and respect are completely worthless. Piece of mind is the only thing that anyone can sell to someone who is motivated by ideas. Ideas like patriotic duty, protecting the innocent, and keeping the world of safety a little more safe. Ideas like truth, loyalty, and honor. Ideas such as emotional attachments to things and people.

That last one's really pretty important. We love our families. Everyone does. I hate my sister, but that's my right. Anyone else says something negative about her, they answer to me. I'm not violent, and I'm certainly no spy, but that's the exact motivation that I'm talking about, here: love.

Hatred can also be a powerful motivator. People are controlled just as easily by their hate for something as their love for something else. As a nation, we love our country, and hate the President who has sought nothing but power and glory. We watch as the Republican Party bails on "Old Shrub" and the Democrats are poised for power. And this angers a lot of people who solidly believe that the government isn't going to help them any more. People like militia members, racist gangs, and actual terrorists (not the Middle Eastern ones who stick to Baghdad or Riyadh or Kabul... real terrorists, who are already on our soil and in our midst, whether we see them or not).

And it's the intelligence community that has our backs. They deal with the unpleasantness, because without them we'd have a constant adrenaline rush from the fear of attack. Except that's already happened. We call it the PATRIOT Act. It's the single most effective terrorism tool against the people of the United States, because it unlocks doors to get the bad guys, and opens all kinds of things that shouldn't be opened to scrutiny that only serves to damage the already-frail trust that many people have in the government. And then there are those who don't trust the government at all, to the point that they make up half-truths and outright lies in order to work people up into a froth.

Conspiracy theorists (the fakes like Michael Moore, I mean, not the real ones who actually have our backs) cause more problems than they solve. We're 7 years past 9/11 as I write this, and people still haven't been able to resolve their questions about what happened on a sunny Tuesday morning in September. They aren't willing to accept the story that twenty religious zealots stole four passenger liners and crashed them into buildings. They aren't told about the near-attempt that morning on our President's life. They don't want to take the facts into consideration, because they see only liars and thieves in our government, stealing from the very people they're sworn to protect... liars who lie for oil and thieves who steal for the entertainment industry. Big business, who wants to "manage" the population to death for the lining in their own pockets. Big business, who funds smear campaigns and manufactures situations in order to get their way, and control who does or doesn't get into Washington. Big business, who have become every bit the tyrants that Andrew Jackson's contemporaries warned us about. The Democrats tries to do something in the late 1800's about it. And now they're just as culpable.

The FISA telecommunications amendments were necessary. The retroactive immunity wasn't. The President's word isn't good enough to seal a deal if the deal is the break the law. Passing a law in Congress first allows activity to proceed. The terrorists are already here: they're in Congress.

And in the middle of it all are the entire intelligence community, just waiting to take the fall. And they will, too, if they're told to. They'll be an unpopular topic, they'll lose money in the short run, but running any country in the world today--especially a world superpower--takes having good intelligence. And that requires that everyone else in the world be our friends. And that requires that the intelligence community not be treated merely as something that can be cast aside like yesterday's apple cores and orange peels. The entire world hinges on the operation of these people, and we never hear about it. They don't do it for the respect. The money's never going to be good enough. They do it because these people are patriots. They are enraptured by an ideal.

And our government is falling far short of the mark of that ideal. Liberty and freedom are used as words for leverage, rather than as things to be held as sacred. Honor is what people have in Iraq, who torture prisoners and kill women and children because they're so pumped up all the time in anti-American sentiment that they're sick and won't be right for a long time. Truth is what you buy from slick lawyers when you're friends with the President. Our entire ideology is shot to hell, and people wonder why "American" is used as an epithet instead of a blessing.

To fix our government, we need to vote. The people have no faith. You see, it doesn't really matter whom you vote for. A write-in vote for Mickey Mouse is better by far than not voting. Of course, I'm sure the Disney Corporation will have words to say about my use of their copyrighted trademark, but the point is this: voting tells the government exactly the message you want it to. Voting gives power. And even if only 35% of the population votes, that's the percentage with power. If only 10% votes, that's the percentage with power to say which direction our government takes. So long as that's the case, America continues to lose freedoms.

The solution is to get involved. Gather your own intelligence. Snoop. Get the dirt on everyone. Vote for the person you think will do the best job. Because leaving it to someone else is what causes the political machine to force Obama to vote in favor of FISA and to choose a corporate croney as a running mate.

Make no mistake: Biden's not the worst Obama could have picked. But he's still pretty bad, and he's got to have a message sent to him. The white-haired men who go for power in Congressional office aren't motivated by ideas or ideals. That makes them corruptible. If you don't believe me, just find a member of the intelligence community who can talk in private and ask.

We treat retired spies worse than we treat child molesters. The people who protected and defended our country long enough to retire are treated with disdain, suspicion, and even rejection. We toss them away like something used up. And that's wrong.

Because without intelligence, we wouldn't be a country. Intelligence is absolutely necessary for the protection of democracy. The problem is that when the entire community as a whole can't count on the government, the government ceases to be able to reliably count on them. When the ideals are compromised, all that's left are money and power. And that compromises our entire intelligence community at once.

Congratulations, G.W., you've just destroyed the one thing in our country that we need to honestly defend against terrorists. It's not your secret nationalized police (which would normally have been Unconstitutional). It's not your airline marshalls. It's not even the administrators of the CIA. It's the human assets that have been developed, and which we casually toss aside with the ideas upon which our country was founded. The FISA amendments were unforgiveably late, and the price so high that I'm shocked anyone would pay it.

And you did it for money and power.

That's not a President the American people can support. And even your own political party knows it. The accusations of stealing elections seem solid enough. Impeachment seems to be our only way out. This doesn't negate the good you've done for our country, Mister President; it merely diminishes it to a level that makes people ask: "so what?"

I respect the office, but I make it a rule never to confuse the office with the person holding it. Others would be less rational. I merely believe that a treasonous fascist (both using the textbook definitions, rather than a mere political slur) should not hold office in this country. The man lost our respect. Let's hope he doesn't take the office with it.

Net Neutrality and Democracy

I've been studying the concept of network neutrality since June. I do know one thing to be a relative certainty: net neutrality is inherently linked to free speech, not to mention the other things like commerce and politics. And I support net neutrality, not because it's what my political choice demands, or because someone else has somehow misinformed me, but because it simply and undeniably makes logical sense.

Common sense dictates that network neutrality is going to mean government regulation. That part is pretty much a given. And while I'm generally against regulations that are imprudent, this is a major case of consumer protection versus corporate interests. When given a choice like that, I'm forced to choose consumer protection almost every time (except in some cases, where it's clear that consumer protection would have minimal impact on consumers while inexorably damaging corporate ability to do business... and there are even exceptions to that, as well).

Regulations about network neutrality would limit corporate abilities to control traffic that didn't originate within their own networks. The Supreme Court in June of 2007 already ruled that companies may control their own network traffic, but specifically excluded traffic outside their network from being throttled or controlled. This was essentially what was already happening, but Comcast began throttling P2P traffic such as BitTorrent or Gnutella, and I actually know some of the people who first reported the story (and no, it wasn't the Associated Press reporters who blew the story wide open). And it's wrong, in spite of their aims.

This is non-neutrality, because it's preventing a type of legitimate traffic from being used. I've been trying to get the Ubuntu CD for over a month, and downloaded a few documentaries (one called "Route Irish," which was a good primer on what not to do during a protest), and because I believe in law, I don't like the idea of stealing the work of others, so I don't trade the RIAA's MP3s or Hollywood's movies (not that I would want to anyway... my tastes are much more refined than that). But I have a friend who told me he found and downloaded the entire "Transformers" movie in about two hours flat, only to find that it was mislabelled and home-produced gay porn. He and I are in the same neighborhood. If he can download his porn file which looked to be a copyrighted file from the outside, why can't I get my legal downloads to work? That's one drawback to net neutrality: trusting the gatekeepers.

So what's the big deal? Why is there so much hype about it? The answer is: corporate interest. The facts of the matter are that the corporations have generally been led to believe (quite incorrectly, I might add) that a neutral network means that so-called "smart" switches would not be permitted. However, the pro-neutrality people are in favor of "smart" switches, so long as they don't give favoritism to traffic based on financial considerations to or from the target site. If it was a radio station, it would already be considered illegal to do this, because this is the definition of payola in the radio system (which, admittedly, is a different medium).

However, the same logic should hold true: paying an ISP (as an example) to either throttle your competition or to not throttle your own connection with them, in addition to charging consumers to access the internet. This is precisely the kind of logic that many media industries employ in their rabid enforcement of copyright: when you take from both ends of the equation, you become rich. Except that we have a word for that. It's called exploitation.

Neutral networks mean that there is no censorship of the "slowing down traffic" kind on the net. Unlike print media, the internet requires neutrality in order to operate correctly. Simply slowing down traffic has the effect of discouraging the dissemination of information and can also be used by people such as your own political adversaries. Network neutrality requires that the flow of traffic be determined only by the limitations of the network, not the chosen limitation of commerce. However, companies do need to be able to "shape" traffic in order to manage a large network.

Oddly, this is not against network neutrality. A "smart" network is a happy network. Managed switches used ethically for the purposes of creating a network that flows smoothly and efficiently is within the interests of network neutrality, as well as corporate interests. It's when this shaping of networks becomes an excuse for limiting traffic to or from a site in the name of forcing profits that the shaping even becomes an issue. Net neutrality is about ethics reform, not about limiting the ability to ethically prioritize traffic in order to assist or increase network functionality. The concept is neutral, not anarchic.

The proponents of neutrality are sometimes criticized for not having a grip on the situation. I was trained at ITT Technical Institute (though I didn't graduate) and my last course of study was network administration. I can assure everyone: I have a very solid grip on the situation, the issue, and the consequences of both choices. And I choose neutrality because it simply makes better logical sense to protect against barriers to entry, and to promote a sound economic development of healthy competitive practices. Raising a required fee to every ISP in the world in order to ensure connectivity of one company's web site would only further the gap between the wealthy and poor companies of the world, rather than assisting in competitive practice.

To date, I have read some 400 documents about network neutrality, both for and against. Early on, I was against neutral networks because I understood that the argument was to be one of "smart" versus "unmanaged" networks. However, that argument is not, and has never been, the issue at all, in spite of the anti-neutrality folks' arguments to the contrary.

The issue of net neutrality is also not simply about consumer protection. It's about censorship. And censorship is contrary to our First Amendment. If we are to embrace democracy for our republic instead of allowing it to devolve into a despotic or fascist state, we must vigilantly protect the traditional rights our Founding Fathers laid out, with the intent in which these rights were specified.

The Necessity of Patents and Reform of Patent Laws

Patent law is something of a gigantic question for a lot of people. These people want to understand it. Most don't. But it's that kind of an attitude that really lends power to the people who want to take advantage of it. So let's begin by defining what I mean when I actually talk about a patent, and how it differs from copyright.

First of all, a patent is the idea that an invention was created by a specific individual or group. It differs from copyright in that patents are for things with practical applications. In fact, it wasn't until 1981 that the major problems of today with patent really started (though these are far from being the only problems), because of the software industry's insistence that a computer program is more than applied mathematics (which is, if you'll excuse the pun, patently untrue).

Computer software works by taking inputs (long strings of numbers), applying math to them (operations), and then creating outputs (more long strings of numbers). The electronic pulses that create a computer program are usually represented by ones and zeroes, representing "on" and "off" states of a computer's central processor. But in the end, all that switching and decision-tree-ing amounts to mathematical decision-making.

By allowing computer software to retain a patent, the Supreme Court has ultimately played a part in all of the abuse that consumers now enjoy because of the crossover between the three protections: copyright, patent, and trademark. The entire term "intellectual property" is actually a misnomer, because while it is created in the mind (by the intellect), there is no property until it has a practical application. In fact, the US PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) used to require a working prototype in order to receive a patent. Since that is no longer the case (since you can't really have a prototype for mathematical equations), patent is ultimately weakened. Making tougher laws to enforce patents has the inverse effect to the desired intent: it weakens all of the so-called "intellectual property" laws by linking to them.

Also, software is not a "practical" application. The word practical has in it the same roots as the word practice. By granting patents on software, we essentially grant a patent on a thought. You see, the word practical implies a practice which is action. Software is a virtual application; that is, it provides theoretical data the way that any complex mathematical function can. A computer monitor is little more than a graphing of those complex mathematical functions. However, graphing is action. Computation is action. The calculations themselves, which require a computer to operate, are non-action, and so should not be protected by patent. Copyright should be enough.

The word application in the software world is also potentially misleading: the connotation is that it is a practical application. However, the reality is that software only streamlines work and provides instructions based on mathematical formulae, rather than accomplishing any work itself. Before software was patented, mathematical equations could only be protected by copyright, and only then if they were published. The result is that there is a lot of confusion about the differences between copyright and patent. And now trademarks are starting to get blended.

In fact, the proponents of intellectual property laws often want the protections of all three of the different sets of laws on one production, rather than a good, strong protection of just one. That's because it ensures that they can control who makes the money and who doesn't. The problem is, in the process it kills the golden goose: people suddenly don't like patents or copyrighting or trademarking because it represents corporate greed and bullying. So they try to simply work without it, and refuse to have anything to do with the enforcement. In the process, they break the law simply trying to be consumers.

And also, since 1981, the practice of "shelving" patents has increased immensely. This practice is probably one of the most damaging that I can imagine. The reason behind shelving patents is simple: it buries competing technologies. For example, an idea for an engine that was entirely powered on water was devised in the 1930's, only to be rendered unusable by the powers in the government making money by keeping oil in the engines of the vehicles on our nation's roads at that time. The water engine worked, as it was demonstrated time and again. But it did not pass muster because of a patent system too weak to protect the individual who came up with it, and too strong to be countered for the right to build it at a later date.

And now anything can be patented. Life forms, business plans, and even book designs can be patented, because of the landmark decision by those in the Supreme Court which failed to take all of the future possibilities into account. The can of worms has been opened and it now seems that nothing can close it again. It creates the problem of non-viability within the patent system. Copyright is also in danger of becoming non-viable because of the way it's enforced. Trademark will follow suit.

Much of this has been speculated about (and special thanks to rms for this speculation, which I believe is spot on, though I'm still trying to gather proof for it) to have originated with the current people who want to lump copyrights, patents, and trademarks together under the heading of intellectual property in order to blend the protections offered by these three widely variant law structures so that all three apply to all creations at once. Organizations such as the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) are puppets of the entertainment media industry, who bullies companies and even governments into acting on behalf of their own interests. Their corruptive influence needs to be at an end. It's time for reforms in the laws that allow this influence in order to reduce the power of patents and restore the balance, and it's time for a stronger separation of patents, trademarks, and copyright.

Though I support Senator Obama in his bid for the Presidency, I will say that I disagree on the idea that expanding our influence overseas is a wise idea. I further believe that patent reforms accomplished will not serve to strengthen patents, but to weaken them by making patenting an undesirable option. We are already witnessing this trend in the draconian world of copyrights.

Balance, in this and all cases of copyright and patent, is key to the survival and continued viability of the systems affected. The imbalance is in the manner in which these things are required by the laws in place today to be enforced. Many copyright and patent enforcers make the claim that their right is fundamental, and that stronger protection means increases in the law for the duration, protections, and requirements to enforce.

Another imbalance exists where there is a barrier to entry, and this is less of a major problem than shelving is, but it's still an enormous issue and one that essentially creates "haves" and "have nots" where patents are concerned. While there are plenty of US patents available at Google Patent Search, there are not patents yet available from other countries, and so enforcing international patents can become an issue, particularly where the WIPO agreements our government claims to adhere to. I say "claims to adhere to" because the language of these agreements is highly subjective in English, and seems to lack an understanding of how patents actually need to work.

Barriers to entry create a chasm between rich and poor. In a capitalist wealth distribution system, there are rich and poor, but there are also a great number of people between. This "middle class" is the foundation for the entire economic structure of capitalism, and while it feels great to be rich, not everyone can be. If there were no barriers to wealth, then everyone would have the same amount of everything, and there would be little incentive to improve: this is a communist economy with perfect wealth distribution. Likewise, if the barriers to wealth were at every turn, there would only be "rich" and "poor" and this would become an imperialist economy instead of a capitalist one.

Capitalism needs a balance between rich and poor. It needs there to be the ability for poor people to make it big, and the risk of the rich to lose everything. It needs the middle class in order to show that progress can be made between rags and riches. But with patents, there is no equivalent. There's the "rich" patent-owners, and the "poor" non-owners, with very little way to bridge the gap, because many kinds of patents required (until 1981 or soon after) a working prototype. And now the gap is one of researching patents and paying an attorney to do all of the legal legwork of filling out the papers. It shouldn't need an attorney; however, with the sheer amount of litigation and exploitative practices happening, not having a lawyer is a liability.

Today, the US PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) requires very little in the way of proof that something works before a patent is issued. If the idea looks "viable enough" and is based on "provable principles" then a patent can be granted if it doesn't step on any other patents. And investors can fill the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" where patents are concerned. But they still won't patent things like sex toys or perpetual-motion machines.

But therein lies the problem: some of the patents that the world actually needs most do not themselves make any money whatsoever. And many that could make money and promote the progress of mankind are sitting on a shelf somewhere, unusable until the patent expires and is not renewed. But a lot of these ideas could enhance other money-making ideas, or in other ways benefit humanity.

Then there are medical patents. In order to build a life-saving apparatus in the spur of the moment, many times you must violate a patent by combining pieces. While this is not the best approach to medicine, it is occasionally necessary to innovate well outside the norms of practice.

Patents are an enormous problem. And like copyrights, balanced approach to patents are essential to the continuation of a free and open society. So what can we really do about all of this? It's a complex answer with several simple solutions.

One solution is to abolish patents altogether and amend the US Constitution. However, this essentially sidesteps the issue, which will remain in spite of the amendment to the contrary. Trying to enforce this will essentially lead us down a very dark path away from the ideals of democracy, so this is not really an acceptable solution.

Another solution is to let them have their way until the population is so sick of patents that they shy completely away from anything to do with patents whatsoever. Again, this solution leads us away from democracy, and is despotic in nature.

A third solution might be to simply ignore patents until the burden of litigation so completely overwhelms the courts that lawmakers are more or less forced to reduce patents. Again, this isn't a great solution, because lawmakers don't respond well to being forced into anything (nor do any of us, really). Lawmakers are human, too.

A fourth solution is to try to accomplish something similar to what has occurred with the Creative Commons and GPL licenses for patents, but again this isn't really as viable for patents as it is for copyright. There are certain ideas that these could work for, and certain things they would not work for.

As a fifth solution, we might also completely scrap the patent system in favor of a new one. Right. Like Congress would ever even give this thought serious consideration.

The sixth solution, and the one I personally favor, is to simply reform patent law back to its original state, sweeping all so-called "progress" in patent law away. Sweeping changes like this, I'll have to admit, aren't a fun thought for me. Rapid changes can destabilize things. However, sweeping changes like this could be accomplished with a minimum impact on stability in as little as 7 years. That's less than two presidential terms.

As you can see, there are quite a number of sides to this debate, and it's likely to continue for a very long time before anything gets done. While not as core to civil liberties as copyright, patent is still a very major issue and a balanced system is still tied to civil liberties.

The MAFIAA’s Biggest Mistake

Okay, so sue me. I've changed my mind about the articles I'm publishing. The MAFIAA is an organization whose operations would normally be counted as criminal.

No, I'm not talking about the Italians, the Russians, or the Mexicans; nor is this a misspelling. I'm talking about the Music And Film Industry Associations of America (MAFIAA), which includes the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and a host of others based here in the United States, with hundreds of foreign counterparts between them which are funded by our patronage. The idea of stealing music that has been purchased isn't a new one, but it certainly is the foundation for the tens of thousands of lawsuits that the RIAA has specifically been found to be doing.

But the biggest mistake has been not listening to their consumers. Hundreds of millions of people (up to 15% of all internet users, which equates to about 10% of the world's population, if my figures are right) use file-sharing technologies such as BitTorrent, Gnutella, and a host of other lesser-known ones. Some actually use it legally, though the MAFIAA wants us to believe that any unauthorized use is (or should be) illegal. They've spent 55 years trying to prove that, well against the tide of consumer desire.

And they've made their consumers into their biggest enemies. Without understanding why, their prosecution of Jammie Thomas has led to their being boycotted. And now there are studies completed in Canada that show that there's a positive impact on music sales, rather than a negative impact.

So why are they still pushing to make it a criminal offense?

It's never really been about money. I realized this for the first time this past summer when ASCAP went after online radio and won, and then used that win to go after radio stations. Though they use financial means and excuses, the real issue here is control of a population that cannot be controlled. When the MAFIAA first got really organized back in the 1970's, they wanted us to believe that recording public broadcasts was illegal. The Supreme Court disagreed. And now the claims are the same, but the argument is different. Reading through the legal materials I have access to, the claims they make aren't much better. But what I do see is a government rapidly losing the high ground because they refuse to back up ordinary citizens' rights. Citizens like Ms. Thomas, a single mother who didn't even know she was being sued for months and months.

The main error here is that citizens' rights have historically trumped those of any big business, with the exception of the past 3 decades. The anti-consumerism prevalent in the courts today is the product of a huge campaign of both outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. It's based on faulty data that nobody can seem to produce. And in fact, they've been rather tight-lipped about methodologies used, and speculation by many of the so-called pirates seems to be that they hide it because they have something to hide.

And yet they persist. If it's not about money, what's it really about?

Control.

Plainly and simply, they want to hold all the keys to all the locks on all the doors and gates. They want to be able to be the ones who determine what is or is not fair use, and they want to make sure that only those who have money are allowed to make that determination. This effectively creates a minority. It makes the average consumer unable to listen to music unless they pay for it. In their world, there would be no more radio, no internet that they didn't control, and we'd all be at their mercy as far as which web sites we visited. Subliminal messages wouldn't be illegal, though cussing up a storm would be unless it was paid for on an audio track.

The MAFIAA organizations want to make us their slaves. And I, for one, am against that.

But so are millions of others, including artists. Artists like Radiohead (independently), and Lamont (sponsored by The Pirate Bay) are starting to be increasingly aware of the level of control associated with these organizations, and they seem to be out to prove that they have what it takes to make it without the big labels. Radiohead's cancellation of their contract with EMI records, for example, is a sign that things could change. The refined studio sound is something that consumers have been moving away from for years, and this is the main sign that big-name labels should have taken for a death knell. But they can't attack individual artists for producing their own music.

The internet has changed society. Some changes have been for better, and some for worse, but the bottom line is that change was inevitable. The entire generation of Internet users who have grown up online are now entering adulthood, and they're beginning to realize just how easy it is to spot exploitative practices. Most that I've spoken to seem to be anti-corporate, which is a warning sign in my mind that big corporations are about to become a thing of the past if they don't start acting like adults instead of crying to Congress that their consumers are taking their toys away.

The failure of these companies to treat their people the way they themselves would want to be treated is a sure sign that they are caught up in issues of money instead of in good business practices. As anyone in the franchise business knows, you should leave the majority of the profits to the owner of the franchise, and take a smaller slice of a large number of pies. Instead, they've taken most of the pie before it's even given, and when they don't make money, they charge artists for the extended money they've given. Then, when they manage to sell something to consumers, they are selling for roughly three to five times what it cost to produce the package (and only 30% of that is typically intermediaries). They're the biggest, meanest dogs on the block, and their marketing model is failing miserably to cash in.

So what does any of this have to do with democracy?

Put bluntly: the people in these organizations are anti-democracy. Their conservatism crossed the line into fascism long ago, and with that change they began to lobby Congress to pass laws that are still awaiting the test of Constitutionality. Because they are self-serving and greedy, they inspire a lack of cooperation and even rebellion against them. And with their complicit behaviors, Congress is also inspiring dissent and the seeds of rebellion have been planted. This becomes dangerous when people learn how to counteract disruption techniques that the government does on a regular basis to break up smaller groups.

The current US Administration's tendency to be self-serving is also showing up in poll after poll that places Bush at the bottom of the heap. People just don't feel as though the government serves them anymore. And in this, I agree with Barack Obama. But what I don't agree with is that the government has become anti-democracy. Those in the government I've spoke to believe that by serving these companies, they ultimately protect the national product of the United States, which in turn offers citizens a better quality of life. Though this isn't actually true, it is logical. In practice, what happens is that we erode our civil liberties with five very wrong Acts of Congress (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, the NET Act of 1997, the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001, and the acts of Congress passed earlier this year which essentially strip any expectation of privacy we can enjoy in our communications).

We can ill-afford to simply ignore the Constitution. We don't have the right any more, for example, to photocopy a page from a book for research purposes. We can't show off a woodcut out of an old out-of-print book because someone might still own the copyright. We are no longer allowed to creatively derive anything from music. We can't make backups of music or software CD's, and wear out the backups instead of the originals. All of that in the United States is illegal.

Fair use under the law is basically no more. There are some limited fair use rights, but the long history of traditional fair use is now illegal. This is an erosion of free expression (and therefore, free speech), and it deserves our attention. We should work to change laws over time to return these individual rights, so that the music industry can continue to create products we enjoy. We should encourage the music industry to make radical changes to their model in order to encourage artists to produce, rather than discouraging them from producing elsewhere. We should point out the exploitations against us, because if the population as a whole is saying something, the government must listen. If it doesn't, it's no longer a democracy.

Republican democracy or no, our country is at a turning point in its history. Either we'll continue to become one of the most open and creative societies in existence, or we will make ourselves into the new Soviet Union, fooling ourselves into believing we're the best simply because we said so and we have one or two nice things that don't actually balance the ills that occur.

Make no mistake: the enemy is not government, nor even big business in general, but these few specific organizations and individuals who insist on changing the laws to accommodate their practices which would be criminal if they were anyone else. The enemy is the fascist mindset that every aspect of everything must be controlled, and that individual rights have no meaning in the face of (and I quote) "larger interests".

The very definition of fascism is that individual rights are secondary to state interests, as it was defined by "Grandfather" Mussolini. Today, the word fascist is considered a political slur, but the truth of the matter is that these organizations and individuals are indeed acting fascist, according to the definition. At the time, we were against Mussolini, and we took out his regime fairly efficiently. Democracy will always win, if it's organized enough to care. Individuals can care, but until we get organized as consumers and voters to take back our government, we are not deserving of democracy and will continue to lose to fascism until there's nothing recognizably democratic about the way we operate. We're headed to become just like China, and I (for one) don't think that's really a democracy, in spite of what their constitution says.

Associating Freely

People are often amazed when I dismiss gossip. I don't tend to like gossip in the first place, as it usually does more harm than good. However, I also surprise people when I express offense at guilt by association. One of our basic freedoms is free association. The main reason for this is because there is an enormous difference between talking to someone and accepting their ideas. Even best friends don't agree on everything.

The human mind is an interesting mechanism. It stores data, processes input, and allows us to interpret the world. It also colors that interpretations based on what we believe to be true. The human mind also adopts what it sees as the best way to survive, and to ensure the survival of the species. People often tell me about murders, and how humans are the only animal in the world who operate on revenge. These same people tell me about how anger is out of control, and they point to the increased violence in our societies that occurs in spite of a reported drop in the crime rate.

I associate with a lot of kinds of people. I talk to felons: embezzlers, tax evaders, drug addicts, and even active drug dealers. I'm actually good friends with a few addicts and tax evaders. I don't agree with their life choices, but then that's my right. And it's their right to pursue those choices. I've made it clear that I will have no part of those things in my own life, and for the most part they honor and respect that. I don't have to threaten them with exposure: I don't snitch. I'm sure if I did, my life would be forfeit.

But why in the world would I want to talk to these people?

First and foremost, I'm a politician, and I always have been, even though I've never held or sought office, and even though I am often critical of our political system. Criticizing the system doesn't mean that I believe it's the wrong system. It just means I think it could be improved, and I would like to help it to improve. It's an ideal democracy that encourages its citizens, from the lowly street urchin to the loftiest political figure, to participate in governmental processes to make everything better. Our system is great because we allow input by the population. It's only dissidence if you actively proscribe the dismantling of the government, or violent action of any kind. In a democracy, that's the way it actually works.

Another reason I talk to these people is because they are a minority in the group that I hang out in. The majority of the people I talk to are upstanding, law-abiding citizens with solid ideas about how things should work—and I disagree with them. So, I talk to these others in order to find out just why they disagree with the status quo, and in a lot of cases they have excellent points. Well, one or two. Most of the criminal element I speak to have bizarre ideas about how things actually work. The largest exception to these are the tax evaders (whom I still don't agree with yet, because I don't ever simply accept what someone tells me as true unless there's a compelling reason).

But people claim that I'm the exception. To that I say: Bullshit. I keep my own mind strictly because I am involved with so many kinds of people. I'm not a part of their groups, even if I am a member of their circles. Human minds tend to adopt the best ways to survive, and the real survival method in this case is to adopt the attitudes and ideas of those around you. Much of what I know and believe is based in observation of people, and much of it's based on whom I talk to.

Association does increase the chances that you agree with those around you, but it also increases the chances that a group can change the minds of an individual. If we really want to rehabilitate criminals, the best way is to isolate them within a group of successful people who can then help them change their minds. The best way to change a large group is to become the majority: not because you wield strength, but because the power of two human minds to facilitate change in one mind is powerful.

Yet I am constantly disallowed access to people whom I consider successful. Largely, this is due to our litigious society and the desire to legally protect one's self. Another part of this equation, however, is the fact that their success might create competition because they understand just how powerful the drive to survive and be the best competitor actually is. They are successful because they limit this competition. People are still driven by instinct.

When I associate with these criminal types, I also can't use their names or occupations as sources for information. When I talk to my upstanding friends, I typically say only "a friend" told me or said such-and-such. I get some really awesome ideas from these people, and I also get ideas that sound good until I run them past my other friends, who tear them into logical pieces. Or they disagree, but they can't really say that there's anything wrong with any portion of the arguments. I'll admit, some of the conclusions are unsettling.

But recently I was criticized and told I was no longer welcome at a friend's house because of whom I chose to associate with. This surprised me because the person who told me this was a pro-democracy politician whose primary platform seemed to be civil liberties, including the freedom of association implied by the First Amendment for the very purpose of promoting democracy. A liberal politician, he fought for my right to vote. And so when he expressed concern about my associations, it set me off-balance. When I tried to defend my choices, he told me I wasn't allowed back at his home until I stopped associating with someone I've known for 12 years—and though this person is thought to be dealing in drugs, I can say that drugs isn't what this person's crime of choice would be.

I also happen to know that he's struggling to stay on the right side of the law, and that he works a dead-end job with few benefits and no health insurance in order to pay rent and utilities he can't always afford. He drives a flashy car because it was inherited from his grandfather, and he's gotten to the point that the car sits in his driveway because he not only can't afford insurance, gas prices are still high enough he bikes to work (which is healthier for him anyway). The politician doesn't know this. All he knows is that this friend of mine lives in a bad neighborhood and has a high-end car sits unharmed in his driveway (unless you count the time a month or so back when it was keyed). If he was dealing in drugs, he wouldn't groan and complain about how much he could be making if he just crossed the line one more time. He wouldn't even tell me about it. He might not even talk to me because of whom I know. And he'd fail his urinalysis, too (since he's still on parole).

My associations, in both cases, are a source of liability for me. But that liability so far has been limited to social liability. In a democracy, the freedom to associate is basic and fundamental. It's also the means by which rational discourse can occur. There isn't a compelling reason to hold associations against someone, particularly when those associations benefit those involved by opening up a dialogue.

The next article will have to do with voting. I voted today, and although I personally talked to over 2,300 people in my city, with ZERO who wanted the incumbent mayor, that mayor won by a narrow 180 votes. And when I looked at the numbers, I noticed that I spoke to a considerable number of those who voted. But if my sample size was zero, how did the mayor win? I'll have an answer next time. I hope.

Religious Freedom Means Tolerance

I know, I know… I promised a blog entry on religions. I said some pretty rotten things in my last post, mostly to try to get people who read that post to read this one. Mostly, I was blowing smoke and standing up mirrors. A day later, those mean, rotten, nasty comments aren't real. I'm very respectful, actually, of others' beliefs. I couldn't bring myself to tear down someone else's beliefs, even if I did lob a few choice bombs to rile people up a little.

So here it is: if you want to be free to have your religious preference protected in the United States under the Bill of Rights, then you are going to have to tolerate the religious preferences of others. Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist, Animist, Wiccan… or any of the other hundreds of thousands of other religious preferences out there, you have to protect the beliefs you don't agree with so that you can maintain the ones you do agree with. Notice I didn't say "religions" because Atheism isn't a religion; it's a religious preference. Atheists might still balk a little, but lack of religion is, fundamentally, a religious choice.

Those who are familiar with your religious works (or good philosophically-supporting ones, if you don't have religious works), please get a copy. If that means a new browser window, fine. Just keep this one open.

Now, in your philosophical or religious works, I'd like to point out the similarities in all of them. All of them have the benefit of the individual in mind, but also bear heavily on the good of the whole (regardless of the different methods used to accomplish this aim). They all believe that there is a better way than stumbling blindly around, believing things that aren't true (and again, they disagree about what is or isn't true in a lot of cases). They all teach things that are valuable and which empower people. And all of them are convincing to one person or another.

Now, switch books. If you're Buddhist or Hindu, grab something from one of the non-Eastern philosophies; if you're Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, grab one of the pagan holy books. As long as it's something you're not familiar with, it'll work for this exercise. And it won't be comfortable.

When you read this other work (and read it you must, or the exercise won't work), give it an empirical run-down. List the points you personally agree with, and the ones you don't. If you're Christian, for example, and reading the Tao te Ching, you can list things like "doesn't mention God" as things you disagree with, and "help other people selflessly" as something you do agree with. There is likely to be a good-sized list. But if you're not honest about it, you're likely going to harm only yourself (since I'm not coming around and checking your work).

Then read your own holy works again. See how many of the things you agree and disagree with can be settled by that work. Chances are, almost all of them will settle in nice and neat. It's not about which religion or religious belief is right and wrong; it's about finding principles that are universally true. These universal principles mean that no religion can have a corner on the "Whole Truth" because at their foundations, we humans are the ones who must interpret what we believe to be true from the best information we have available. The point of this exercise is about looking for things that are different from what you believe, and yet still good and desirable.

Tolerance of what others believe means working together to understand the differences. Understanding, for example, the difference between schools of thought in Islam means studying the Koran. Knowing why the Chassid believe what they do and why that differs from other sects of Judaism means you have to understand the Torah and its history. Know why Kali worship isn't well-received means reading up on both the Upanishads and the Baghavad-Gita. Understanding that Buddhists aren't supposed to embrace Buddhism too closely, means studying the hundreds of texts of that religion. And all of this together means that a life-long study of religions is needed, in addition to other things.

There is one result that's been of value: I've grown stronger in my own beliefs by learning about the differences in belief of others. I've also freed myself of the intolerance that many people have. My only intolerance now is intolerance. That's right: intolerance will not be tolerated.

So it pisses me off when people try to say one religion is "better" than another, or that theirs is the "only true way" that things can happen. While I believe that there is a well-defined path through the forest, being on the path is not necessarily the best course of action at all times. There are many ways through a forest to get to the same destination. The path just means you're not likely to get lost on the way if you're in unfamiliar territory.

Likewise, if you rely on God, Goddess, Brahma, Krishna, Allah, Jehoweh, the Buddha, the Jade Emperor, your Higher Self, or whomever else you might believe in, for guidance, then you are going to use their path. And there are many paths through the forest, and many ways to avoid becoming the victim of pitfalls and perils. There is good to be found in all religious preferences: even in Atheism, the power of rationality, logic, and self-worth that are promoted to empower individuals to act in the absence of an all-seeing or all-knowing metaphysical entity have quite a high value and worth. And I will say that Atheists were something I tended to shy away from until one taught me how to be logical. But it backfired: instead of diminishing my beliefs, it strengthened them significantly. And it bolstered my understanding of personal experiences, and extended my tolerance to include the benefit of secular logic.

But that's just me, right?

No. I have made a study the past few years of democracy, which is why I've elected to write this blog in the first place. And I've discovered that democracy is more important to human progress than any other force in history. There cannot be any force of religion that can claim a corner on democracy, because the principles of democracy are universally-true. The differences, whether compatible or incompatible, are what make humanity resilient and able to bounce back. Mere tolerance of those differences means that the human race as a whole increases its survivability. Embracing those differences would mean even better survivability, because we would not only understand that these differences exist and accept them, we would really listen to one another's ideas instead of dismissing the ideas because of whom they came from.

Democracy isn't about borders, or politics, or religions. But it makes all of those things possible, desirable, and even beneficial to us. It allows us to embrace the differences that are most certainly the product of progress, and it allows us to use those differences to progress even more. But religious freedom is only one part of the equation.

There is a larger set of freedoms that are ultimately at the heart of democracy. This larger set is lumped together under the heading "belief" (as in: "freedom of belief"). The right to believe differently is one of those basic, fundamental things that is required in order for democracy to truly exist. It depends upon the right to privacy (the right to be free from governmental intrusion on daily life: q.v., my last post). It depends on free speech. And most of all, it depends upon the tolerance of others. Without the right to believe something differently, democracy is simply not possible. You see, this is because if we have groups who believe differently, we are going to arrive at something either universally true, or we are going to arrive at a peaceful compromise. The alternative is to fail to have democracy, and to fail utterly at maintaining freedom.

So, moving away from religion, let me take three things that I don't personally hold in my own belief system: neo-Nazism, homosexuality, and Satanism. These three are offensive to one group or another. I am personally offended by hate speech. The thought of homosexuality actually disgusts me. I find that most (but far from all) Satinists are puerile sissies with a severe lack of self-discipline and an inability to accept anything that might benefit more than one person at a time. I'm entitled to these opinions under a democracy.

But they are entitled to have their opinions, too. I will uphold the right to be a Nazi, even though I strongly disagree with the Nazis. I will uphold the right to be homosexual, in spite of the fact that I don't have much in the way of leanings that direction. Satanism is little more than a rebellious version of Christianity, but I uphold the right of the adherents to that belief to believe it. How can I do this?

Well, the reason I'm able to do this is because I'm a religious minority with my own minority sexual proclivities, and I don't believe in the concept of "race", which by itself puts me into a fairly large minority. I'm not going to go into much more detail about that, but suffice it to say that by protecting these others' rights to believe what they believe, I'm allowed to expand my own understanding of human nature. Likewise, permitting these people to explore their own personalities and beliefs helps us to get to the truth of things, instead of blindly adhering to things that are untrue.

We're discovering, for example, that sexual proclivities are largely based in genetic predisposition, and that some people may actually not have a choice as to their sexual preferences. But even while these may not be choices, we still have a choice about how to handle those proclivities. Denial of sexual urges, we're finding, is harmful to us. Again, the way we handle these urges is the issue, rather than having the urges themselves. Radically zealous Christians, for example, tend to use one minute passage of the Bible to show that homosexuality is a sin. But on closer inspection, we see that it's not the law of God that's the issue, but the law of Moses. People think they're the same thing; they're not.

Moses sought to try to give people an understanding of how God's laws worked, and to interpret them. However, he had his own biases and prejudices to work in there and (being human), I'm sure that in more than one case he was injecting his own stuff in there instead of keeping it purely God's laws (the 10 commandments). God didn't say "thou shalt be married under the laws of mankind" in order to be able to have children. What God did say was that you shouldn't be jealous. Marriage actually helps prevent jealousy by drawing a mental barrier of ownership. And that ownership goes two ways.

But people are now realizing that we can't own one another and still be happy. We have to permit happiness; we cannot force it. We have to decide for ourselves what is right, and we don't like being owned. For a lot of us, it's against our essential programming. Human nature demands self-direction, even if that self-direction is against our own best interests. If we don't have that self-direction, then we rebel. Therefore, a parent's duty is to teach how to conduct that self-direction. Many parents believe that this self-direction is taught by forcing a child to conform to the will of others, but this only leads to a rebellious nature later on. Self direction is taught by finding these universal principles (like those of democracy) and applying them in a personal way to personal situations. It is only in this way that we are able to deal effectively with societies and learn to integrate in a healthy way, even while at the same time not accepting everything that others tell us as the absolute truth. This simply is not rational.

The pro-democracy folks in Asia, for example, must understand that the government will not simply release its absolute authority over the people and relinquish that power at a whim. They have to have proof. They have to have time to mull it over. And they must learn to accept that those truths are true by illustration in the long term, rather than being forced to change. The alternative is Tiananmen Square in June of 1989. China still hides the ugliness of that night, but I think this is a mistake. And expressing this opinion is my right as a member of a democracy.

Suppressing information like this hurts China, and because I believe in the beauty of Chinese culture and the high level of dignity that Chinese history has typically held, I find this suppression harmful because it reduces the chance that anyone will be able to learn from that lesson. And because the lesson here is suppression, I fear that China may be doomed to repeat it at some point in the future when the current generation's memory no longer brings the ugliness of the lesson to the surface. Like Kung Fu, history can sometimes only teach by a limited amount of pain and suffering.

Likewise, in Burma there are only so many bullets they can fire before they finally run out. And the fact that there are no weapons on the side of the pro-democracy population there is a testament to the power of democracy. It frightens the military regime in Burma to believe that their way is not the most correct way. And like China, outside interference may do more harm than good. I find the UN's handling of the sovereignty of Burma acceptable and correctly-principled. I support democracy in Burma, but if such democracy is forced on them, then it will certainly never be lasting. China, probably better than anyone, recognizes this, but I suspect they have their own agenda where this is concerned. I would rather assist the junta in a peaceful resolution of the conflict than risk an all-out war. If they simply kill all of the people who oppose them, they will eventually run out of subjects.

The days of Myanmar are numbered at this point. The will of the people to rid itself of the military dictatorship that now rules the country with an iron hand has been heard. A government can only last for as long as the people permit it. Many would rather die than accept the military's rule. Having a military in a country such as Burma is important; but it shouldn't be all-encompassing. The peoples' inalienable right to believe has trumped every bullet in Myanmar's arsenal. Some rights are inalienable by definition. When people learn there is a better way, they will want it. Power cannot exist if there is no one to have power over. It's now only a matter of time before Myanmar becomes Burma once more. It may be tomorrow, or decades away, but I'm not too worried: it will happen, and the price will be higher than either side can really afford. But, in the words of one of our founding fathers in the United States: "The tree of liberty must occasionally be fed by the blood of patriots and of tyrants: it is [the tree's] natural manure."

We must uphold the right to believe differently. This means tolerating China's suppression of information. It means allowing Burmese people to accept and reject their own government. It means helping those who believe differently to not become victims, but instead creating martyrs for the religion of tolerance that is democracy. Every drop of blood spilled by those in power is added to the scale against them by the tide of the will of the people at large. When they've had enough, they'll speak. And it'll be bloody, and a hard fight. But if even one government realizes that the power of democracy cannot be held by any central authority, then that's the place where democracy is real. That's the place where I want to be.

So far, America really does have a corner on the market, where democracy goes. We have far to go, but we're the closest so far. We can't change China or Burma. We can't force the world to accept our ways. What we can do is to support and encourage. If we interfere, we subvert the entire reason behind democracy. It has to be the free choice of others, because it's the greatest choice anyone can make. Until we can let go of the differences that divide us and embrace the differences that allow us to be separate and yet unified—many individuals supporting the cause of being individuals together—then we cannot have, and probably don't deserve to have, democracy. We need to learn that our strength is not in a unified front, but in a consensus agreement to pursue a goal. Presentation of a unified front means failure to adhere to the principles of democracy that allow differences of opinion and belief to make us stronger. It might take a slightly longer time to arrive at a decision, but if we listen to all objections, and actually invite these objections in, then "duke it out" with logic and reason, then what we will have in the end is something as close to perfection as possible.

In a democracy that is operated on entirely correct principles, disagreement is the rule, but the power flows from the bottom up. This creates a foundation that is unshakeable. This creates something stronger than what we now have. This creates a perfect democracy.

My next post will be about freedom of association and how it ties in with freedom of speech, privacy, freedom of belief, and I'll include a brief run-down of how consensus should work in a democracy.